CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Berger.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson in accordance with the requirement at the last hearing that we produce statements of the people that we intended to lead as witnesses, we have done so and we have furnished our Learned Friends with copies of those statements and also the Committee with copies of those statements. For ease of leading the evidence, could we mark the statements that we've handed in as the next exhibit number? I believe it will be Exhibit D.
CHAIRPERSON: As one bundle?
MR BERGER: As one bundle. We've numbered it through from one through to fifteen and then each witness will come and identify his or her own statement.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay let's just get the ones and the twos in order, so we all understand. Malaza's one will be D1, am I right?
MR BERGER: It will be D 1 and D 2.
CHAIRPERSON: Oh, you're going by pages.
MR BERGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay and we have 15 pages.
MR BERGER: 15 pages, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Good.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: I assume, I trust that the sequence of pages, you've checked, has been consistent in everybody's bundle.
MR BERGER: I have, but just for safety sake ...
CHAIRPERSON: Okay.
MR BERGER: Malaza will be D 1 to D 2.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR BERGER: Mokoena is D 3 to D 5.
CHAIRPERSON: Correct.
MR BERGER: Anderson is D 6 to D 7.
CHAIRPERSON: Correct.
MR BERGER: Machoabane, D 8 to D 10.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR BERGER: Abrahams is D 11 to D 13.
CHAIRPERSON: Is this Abrahams or Abranhamse?
MR BERGER: It's Abrahams.
CHAIRPERSON: Without the E, or with it?
MR BERGER: Without the E, yes. Oh, I'm told that it's Abrahamse. Mr Abrahamse will come and clear that up.
CHAIRPERSON: His affidavit, or his statement rather, goes to ...
MR BERGER: D 11 to D 13 yes and then Mbethe is D 14 to D 15.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. I just want to get on record that these are statements not affidavits.
MR BERGER: That is so, yes. Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, the first witness I wish to call is Ms Baleka Mbethe. That will be D 14 and 15.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mbethe what language would you prefer to use?
MS MBETHE: I could use either English or Zulu?
CHAIRPERSON: The choice is yours, whichever you're comfortable with.
MS MBETHE: Okay. English.
BALEKA MBETHE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Mbethe I want you to have a look at Exhibit D, pages 14 and 15 which I've placed before you. Is it correct that that is your statement?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: Have you read through the statement?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: Do you confirm that the contents of the statement are true and correct?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: You are the Deputy Speaker of the National Assembly, is that correct?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: And in your statement you deal with a particular traumatic period when you were in Gaberone, Botswana, is that correct?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: Now, you've spoken about a number of people in your statement. I'm not going to ask you to repeat it because you have already confirmed it under oath, what I do want to ask you is at this time, is it correct that you were living with your children in Gaberone?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: How old were your children?
MS MBETHE: At the time the youngest of the children were 6 and 5, a boy and a girl.
MR BERGER: A boy and a girl and they were living with you in Gaberone?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: During the afternoons, where usually would your children be found?
MS MBETHE: Many times they would go over to Uriel's place because Uriel just used to have a thing with children. Other times they would be playing around of course.
CHAIRPERSON: Can you give us that address? Can you remember that address?
MS MBETHE: I can't remember the address, but it's the house which was also hit on the day of the raids.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that the one that was near the University?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetser.
MR COETSER: I have no questions for the witness.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR COETSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Ms Mbethe, I gather from paragraph 2 that while you were in Botswana you were a member of the ANC doing political work for the organisation, is that correct?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: What did that entail?
MS MBETHE: Specifically first of all I did political work, as I say in that paragraph, in the ANC Women's section, which of course is an organisation that is part of the ANC structures, so it meant mobilising the women, explaining the issues that were affecting women inside the country, South Africa, mobilising Botswana women, mobilising the people of Botswana to understand why they needed to support us, so that was specific to the issue of women. But secondly, as part and parcel of ANC structures in Botswana, we also had to explain the policies of the ANC, explain the struggle and show that the people of Botswana as a whole, understood why the international community had to support the struggle of the people of South Africa.
MR VISSER: Yes. And that struggle was a struggle, inter alia, by the ANC against the then South African Government, that is correct, isn't it?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: And that struggle of the ANC, you're probably aware, was based on so-called four pillars of the struggle, do you recall that?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: And Botswana, if I may put it that way, was an important springboard for action against the previous government, previous national government in the furtherance of the aims of the struggle of the ANC. Would you agree with that statement?
MS MBETHE: Botswana was an important host to the ANC structures who were involved in different activities in furtherance of this struggle.
MR VISSER: Yes and it had become so since 1977 when Mr Marius Schoon and Mrs Jeanette Schoon started establishing structures and roots to and from Botswana, are you aware of that history?
MS MBETHE: I am aware of the fact that Comrades Marius and Jeanette lived in Botswana. I was not myself in Botswana at that time, but I know that they were there before I was there.
MR VISSER: I see. Well were you perhaps informed that Mr Marius Schoon established very sophisticated underground structures and networks, infiltration networks in Botswana?
MS MBETHE: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR VISSER: And that this, that these underground structures have the ...(no sound - tape faulty) became more ... (indistinct) as time went by. Do you agree with that?
MS MBETHE: ....(no sound) I was not informed.
CHAIRPERSON: You didn't know that that happened, if at all?
MS MBETHE: No. I know that those Comrades lived in Botswana in the years that he mentioned, but I don't know anything about what activities they were involved in.
MR VISSER: Now in 1985, would it be fair to say that there were ANC structures which were sophisticated in Botswana?
MS MBETHE: I don't know what you mean by sophisticated, but certainly there were ANC structures who were very disciplined.
MR VISSER: Yes. And would you agree that there were infiltration routes to and from Botswana for people leaving the Republic of South Africa and returning to the Republic of South Africa?
MS MBETHE: In terms of what I was involved in Botswana, I interacted with people who came back and forth from Botswana into South Africa, through normal routes that everybody uses between the two countries.
MR VISSER: Were you ...(no sound) aware that there were people also leaving the Republic?
CHAIRPERSON: I think from the Panel's point of view, we can accept that Botswana was one of the neighbouring states that facilitated ANC activities.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. In our activities on behalf of the ANC, did you meet with other members of the ANC and particularly MK members?
MS MBETHE: I met with a lot of comrades, members of the ANC and I had no way of telling which ones of them were MK, so I wouldn't say I met MK comrades, but I met comrades.
MR VISSER: I see. Fine. Would it be fair to say that you were not always entirely informed as to what each and every one of them was doing in Botswana?
MS MBETHE: I think to the same extent that even today none of us can say we know entirely what everyone else, even those who are our friends and relatives, are doing.
MR VISSER: Yes, they were hard times and one never knew when you spoke to somebody whether he might not be a spy, isn't that correct?
MS MBETHE: Of course.
MR VISSER: Of course. Now you mentioned some names, Ms Mbethe, in your statement. Can we just talk about the people that you mentioned. You refer in paragraph 3 to Mr Thami Mnyele and you explain that he was a founder member of Medu, can you just tell us what that stands for?
MS MBETHE: Medu was a cultural organisation which had been formed by South African exiles together with people from other countries and Botswana people resident in Botswana in those years.
MR VISSER: Yes, but what ...
MS MBETHE: And it was an organisation that was basically looking in the areas of music, graphic arts, drama, writing, you know.
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: What does Medu stand for, Ms Mbethe?
MS MBETHE: Medu means roots.
CHAIRPERSON: Was that the name of the organisation? MEDU.
MS MBETHE: Of the organisation, ja, Medu Art Ensemble.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay. It wasn't a union?
MS MBETHE: No, no.
MR VISSER: And it wasn't an abbreviation of a longer name?
MS MBETHE: No.
MR VISSER: Fine. Thank you. Now what I want to put to you in regard to Mr Mnyele, or let me rather ask you, did you consider Mr Mnyele to be a target of the South African Government because of his activities in Botswana?
MS MBETHE: I considered Mr Mnyele a target like all of us were, I mean all of us just knew that any minute it was likely that the South African Defence Force were likely to come in and just hit at people randomly, so he was also a target.
MR VISSER: Well you say randomly, but don't you mean to say that because you were attached to the ANC, isn't that what made you targets?
MS MBETHE: But often even people of those countries were killed, that's why I say randomly.
MR VISSER: Yes, oh, I see, alright. You see because you say in paragraph 5 that you told Mnyele that you hoped that he was not speaking at his house as there had been an alert since the beginning of June of 1985.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: What was that alert?
MS MBETHE: An alert, and I mean there were many alerts, this was one among many, an alert was when we had received information through our own intelligence structures that there was an intention on the part of the South African Forces to come in and hit and of course you know, people would just be told, every ANC household would be informed that there was this likelihood.
MR VISSER: Alright and did this alert refer to a raid or on a lesser scale of people who might be eliminated one by one or what did the alert, what was that about? Was that about the expectation that there might be a raid?
MS MBETHE: The expectation that there might be an attack of one form or another. We could never tell.
MR VISSER: Alright. Mr Mnyele, did you know him well?
MS MBETHE: I knew Mr Mnyele.
MR VISSER: Did you know his wife?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Was she known as Rhona Segale?
MR MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Did you know about any of her activities?
MS MBETHE: I didn't work directly very closely with her as such, but for instance I knew that at that time she was on her way to the conference in Lusaka.
MR VISSER: Yes. No she was not a victim of this raid in the sense that she was killed, you know that.
MS MBETHE: Ja, she was not there.
MR VISSER: Yes. Do you, can you give any comment on an allegation that she was involved in providing crash courses in the use of hand grenades to comrades who were going to be infiltrated to South Africa?
MS MBETHE: I can't comment on that.
MR VISSER: Right. And if it was suggested that Mr Mnyele himself was also involved in that, I suppose you also can't comment about that?
MS MBETHE: No.
MR VISSER: Alright. Can we turn to the next page, paragraph 7, Mr Mike Hamlyn. How well did you know him or how often did you have the occasion of meeting with him in Botswana?
MS MBETHE: Mike Hamlyn was one of us, he was one of the community of ANC people who lived in Botswana at the time, specifically involved in the Medu activities and he and Uriel for instance shared a house and that's the house I was saying often my children went to play, spend the afternoons at. He was a generally very reserved person. I mean he was not a talkative person, but he was a student.
MR VISSER: Yes and if I'm not mistaken that was one of the houses that was hit on the 14th of June.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: That very house. Did you regard him as a member of the ANC?
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Yes. Do you know whether he was trained by MK, or MK-trained, if I may use that expression?
MS MBETHE: I'm not aware of that.
MR VISSER: You're not aware of that. Do you know whether he recruited people for intelligence work for the ANC or not?
MS MBETHE: I don't know.
MR VISSER: Or whether he conducted also crash courses for suicide squads, hand grenades?
MS MBETHE: I'm not aware of that. I would be quite surprised.
MR VISSER: Yes. And you say he lived in the servant's quarters.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: I think that's what Mr Uriel Abrahamse refers to as the rooms at the back of the house.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Now Mr Dick Mtsweni is another person that you've mentioned Ms Mbethe. I just want to ask you about him. Well perhaps I can make this very short. If any of the people that you mentioned were involved in MK activities, I don't suppose you would know about that.
MS MBETHE: No.
MR VISSER: You wouldn't.
MS MBETHE: No, but there are people where I can say I would be surprised.
MR VISSER: Yes, like Mr Hamlyn.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Now just one last issue then, you say in regard to George Pahle, you know that just before the raid, the South African Police agents, tried by failed to recruit him to work for them, I take it as an informer. How did you come by that information?
MS MBETHE: Because it was something that irritated them for quite some time, for the few months before ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Who was irritated?
MS MBETHE: This couple, the Pahles and you know they often talked to us about how they were getting these phone calls, in particular directed to George and I remember one day the call came while I was in their house, but George was not there and so while Lindi was on the phone telling them that George was not there, George walked in and so he went and took the call and he really told them off that day and I suspect that was the last call. That's the call where in fact they said: "George we hope you will not regret this", because they were consistently trying to suggest to him that he should come and meet them in Lobatse and maybe cross over to Mafikeng so that they could talk to him and see how he could work with them.
MR VISSER: Yes. And logically, one assumed that they were police agents.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Although they could have been military agents as well, one would imagine.
MS MBETHE: You mean those - we don't know. What I know is that one of them was a fellow who had become an askari.
MR VISSER: I see. I see. Who was he?
MS MBETHE: I don't remember the name.
MR VISSER: I see. You wouldn't know for example from your own knowledge whether both George and Lindiwe were involved in intelligence work for the ANC?
MS MBETHE: I wouldn't know.
MR VISSER: Or whether they were military trained, for example?
MS MBETHE: No, I wouldn't know.
MR VISSER: Yes, or whether they conducted a safe house in Botswana for MK's in transit, you wouldn't know about that, if it were true?
MS MBETHE: Their house in Broadhurst was an open house, you know, I mean it's a house where in fact at some point they hosted Hugh Masekela, you know he stayed with them for some time, it was a house where people were always there listening to music and having fun, you know it was not a house where you could house MK operatives.
MR VISSER: How far was this house from where you lived, where they lived?
MS MBETHE: It was 10, 15 minutes drive. 10 minutes drive.
MR VISSER: Yes. It wasn't a house where you would frequent every day?
MS MBETHE: Not every day, but you know ...
MR VISSER: You went there often?
MS MBETHE: Very often and they came to my house quite often.
MR VISSER: Yes. Thank you Mr Chairman.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR CORNELIUS: I have no questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination Mr Berger?
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Mbethe, you were asked the question whether any of the people that you speak about in your statement were involved in MK activities and would you know and you said: "No, but I would be surprised".
MR VISSER: She said she would be surprised about some of them.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let him complete the question.
MR BERGER: No, she didn't say: "I'd be surprised about some of them", but I'll ask the question.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's not quibble about it. Get to the bottom of it.
MR BERGER: Well which of the people, if we can go through the list, which of the people in your statement would you be surprised if you were to learn today that they were involved in one way or another in MK activities at that time?
MS MBETHE: Let's start with Thami. You know Thami was so heavily involved in the work of Medu, in the work of the Graphics Unit, he had trunks and suitcases packed, as I say in my statement, he was ready to go. You see for some time there was word that a few of the comrades had to leave the area and it took Thami a long time to actually take the decision to pack and move to the rear, which is you know places like Lusaka or any other place, but finally that week he had made up his mind and he was leaving Botswana and he had packed his artwork, he had packed his things and he was going to be going to Lusaka and as I say, he was also going to go and participate in this International Youth Conference, so I would be surprised that a person who was so heavily involved in the kind of work that he was doing, would have had any time to have been engaged in anything else, let alone MK and then ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Mbethe, just to get it in its context.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: In order to avoid me having to deal with an argument that we didn't deal with in evidence, if we're talking about June 1985, it's not every day a person moves house, it's not every day that someone has an opportunity to go to a conference in Russia, now do I understand you correctly that you would be surprised if he had time to involve himself in MK activities, because he was busy moving house and he was preparing to go to this Conference? What about other times?
MS MBETHE: What I'm saying, on an ongoing basis in his life while he was in Botswana, Thami was an artist, that was just who he was and I mention here, for instance, the Poster Culture that emerged inside South Africa. He was continuously involved, you know, in interactions with people coming from South Africa also on that level, on those kinds of issues, which in fact would befit a description like political work, because that would be political work.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying his enthusiasm for the arts didn't leave him much time to get involved in anything else?
MS MBETHE: I don't think so, that is my view. And then we come to Mike Hamlyn. Mike Hamlyn was a student, a very young, white South African who had come to Botswana and one of those, in fact, who I dare say would have been scared to go to MK. You know, he was just a student. The old man Mtsweni, was an old man, he basically just drove for the ANC, did all sorts of things where he needed to drive the van of the ANC, delivering supplies all over Gaberone.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MS MBETHE: Pardon?
CHAIRPERSON: What did that entail, driving and delivering supplies?
MS MBETHE: Supplies are like - you see the ANC in its different communities in exile at that time would look at its members in that area and there would be some of those people who were full-time engaged in the work of the ANC or who were young people on their way to schools abroad, in other countries, and therefore the ANC is fully responsible for them wherever they were, so they would be accommodated maybe in a house and all their needs would have to be taken care of. If they needed to be driven to hospital, to clinic, you know ANC transport would have to do that, but on a monthly basis, groceries would have to be delivered. At that time I was actually one of those people. I had a husband who was working, who was earning a salary, but for me and the children the ANC took responsibility and so the truck would come and deliver some supplies at my house as well, so I'm saying you know, there was that sort of thing that was happening and this old man helped in that kind of work.
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me, and I'm not for one minute suggesting that what I'm going to say now is true, in delivering supplies, do you discount Mr Mtsweni delivering supplies to MK, for example ammunition? Do you discount it?
MS MBETHE: Ammunition. I doubt that he would be delivering eggs and ammunition at the same time. You know he would ...
CHAIRPERSON: Survival supplies.
MS MBETHE: Yes. Then George and Lindi. George and Lindi, I mean Lindi was a civil servant in Botswana. You know she travelled all over the world on behalf of the Botswana Government. George was full-time a business man. He was up and down with these busses and they were at our house often. Sometimes in fact they would complain that they are not told when there are alerts and yet know this because they will just come here one of these days and kill everybody. You know, they sort of felt sometimes that they were not always told when there were alerts.
George and Lindi, in fact they were due to go to Harare the day before, I don't know why they didn't go, so again that would be a couple I would say I would be surprised if anyone were to try ...
CHAIRPERSON: Were they connected to the ANC in any way?
MS MBETHE: They were ANC members. All these people I'm talking about are people that I understood to be ANC members, we were all ANC members.
CHAIRPERSON: And any connection to MK?
MS MBETHE: Not that I'm aware of. They told me for instance about this man I say had become an askari, they told me that before they came to Gaberone they had been living in SeliwePikwe or somewhere, one of the smaller towns, and that they would from time to time be asked to accommodate someone who was in transit somewhere and that they remembered this man who was now an askari, trying to recruit George, as one of those people that they had accommodated in their house and of course, when you accommodate someone you are never told what this person is doing or where they are going, or whatever, they just gave accommodation, at least to that particular man.
MR BERGER: You described them as socialites in Gaberone.
MS MBETHE: Yes.
MR BERGER: Were they well known as socialites?
MS MBETHE: Oh ja, they were quite well-known. Gaberone is a very small community, you know, so people like the South African community, tended to stick out.
MR BERGER: Alright. Thank you Ms Mbethe, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
WITNESS EXCUSED
MIKE TURNED OFF
ON RESUMPTION
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. The next witness I beg to call is Ms Antoinette Malaza. If I could ask her to come forward. Chairperson for the record Ms Malaza's statement is Exhibit D, pages one and two.
ANTOINETTE MALAZA: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Malaza, I'd like you to look at the document in front of you, Exhibit D and particularly pages one and 2. Do you confirm that pages one and two of Exhibit D are your statement?
MS MALAZA: Yes, I do confirm that.
MR BERGER: And do you confirm that the contents of your statement are true and correct?
MR MALAZA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: I'd like - you described in your statement why Joseph went up to Gaberone to fetch that vehicle that had broken down. I'd like you to tell the Committee what sort of a person Joseph was.
MS MALAZA: He is my brother. I stayed together with him at Mofulo, prior to his departure for Botswana. He was a darling of the community and after matric, that was before he worked for Hertz Car Hire, he matriculated at Orlando High School and after that he worked for Hertz and he started purchasing vehicles for himself and he purchased five of them and he used to rent these vehicles out to people and one day there were these people who wanted to go to Botswana and they wanted to rent this vehicle, that was around 11th and the 10th. He gave them the vehicle and on the 12th of 1985, Joseph received a phone call from Gaberone from the very same people to whom he had rented the vehicle and he was informed the vehicle had been broken and was at the police station. He then came to me, requesting me to accompany him in another car to Gaberone and he was going to fix the one broken in Gaberone and I was employed, I could not take leave from my employment and he was due to leave on the 13th and he was going to spend his time at Lindi and George's place at Gaberone.
MR BERGER: Can I stop you? You say you were employed at the time?
MS MALAZA: Yes.
MR BERGER: Did you try and get leave to go up to Botswana with Joseph?
MS MALAZA: Yes, I did, but I did not have any more extra days for leave.
MR BERGER: So you told Joseph that he would have to go alone?
MS MALAZA: Yes.
MR BERGER: And then you say in your statement that it was arranged that he would spend the night at Lindi's house?
MS MALAZA: Yes, correct.
MR BERGER: And then it was the next day that you heard about the attack?
MS MALAZA: Yes, it started on the radio in the morning and I went to work and I received a phone call to the fact that I should come back home and upon arrival was informed that Joseph and Lindi and George had been killed.
MR BERGER: Then you say in paragraph 9 that Joseph was buried in South Africa?
MS MALAZA: That is correct, yes, after burying the one couple, we brought his corpse to South Africa for burial.
MR BERGER: Thank you. I have no further question.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetser.
MR COETSER: I have no questions for the witness thank you.
NO CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Just a few, thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Was Joseph older than you?
MS MALAZA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Would I be correct to say that in 1985 he was about 28 years old, is that correct?
MS MALAZA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Now did you know anything about his political activities?
MS MALAZA: No.
MR VISSER: So you can't confirm either that he was or wasn't a member of the ANC or MK, you just don't know?
MS MALAZA: No, we don't know that.
MR VISSER: Who is Mrs M, for Mary, I'm not saying that that's her name, Malaza, is that your mother?
MS MALAZA: That's my name, my other name is Mami.
MR VISSER: Let me ask you this, did you give evidence before the Human Rights Violations Committee of the TRC?
MS MALAZA: No.
MR VISSER: Do you know whether someone of your family, by the name of Malaza, did give evidence before that Committee?
MR MALAZA: Which year was that? I cannot recall.
MR VISSER: Unfortunately - oh, it's 1996, on the 30th of October, 1996. Oh my attorney has just found the name. It's at page 15, Chairperson.
MS MALAZA: That's Lindiwe's mother, Lindiwe Malaza, Lindiwe Pahle the mother.
MR VISSER: Mamoketi. Yes, can you confirm that, is that Lindi's brother?
MS MALAZA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And is Lindi your cousin?
MS MALAZA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR COETSER: No questions, thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR COETSER
MR BERGER: Yes, Mr Chairman, thank you. Just one question.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Malaza, you said in an answer to Mr Visser that you didn't know about Joseph's political activities, but in paragraph 8 of your statement, you say there that you can confirm that Joseph wasn't a member of the ANC or of MK. Why do you say that in paragraph 8 and at the same time you say you don't know about his political activities?
MS MALAZA: I confirm that he was not a member, maybe I did not get the question quite well. I confirm that he was not a member because when he left for Botswana, I did not have that knowledge about his affiliation to the ANC, save for my knowledge that he was going to pick up his vehicle.
CHAIRPERSON: It is a manner of speaking Mr Berger, that I don't know about that, it doesn't mean that it is possible.
MR BERGER: Yes indeed. Prior to this trip when Joseph went to Gaberone, were there other occasions when Joseph would drive back and forth to Gaberone?
MS MALAZA: There was an instance where he was to take Lindi's mother to Gaberone, but that was not a common occurrence.
MR BERGER: Thank you, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
JUDGE MOTATA: Ms Malaza, how are you related to Lindiwe, because reading through the documentation I found that her maiden surname was Malaza?
MS MALAZA: That was my uncle's daughter. We are cousins, first cousins.
JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Ms Malaza.
CHAIRPERSON: Ms Malaza, Joseph was never, can you tell us whether he was ever approached or harassed by the South African Police in South Africa?
MS MALAZA: No.
CHAIRPERSON: So he was never a target of the Security Police of South Africa?
MS MALAZA: Not at all.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, there is a question that arises from My Learned Friend, Mr Berger's question.
CHAIRPERSON: In which regard is that?
MR VISSER: That is in regard to the evidence in cross-examination of the witness in regard to paragraph 8, which my Learned Friend now has got the witness to answer that she now confirms that he was a member of the ANC.
CHAIRPERSON: And what is your problem with that?
MR VISSER: Well, Chairperson, that's - I wish to ask further questions about that now because she conceded to me that she didn't know whether he was a member of the ANC and I left the further examination as a result of that.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I will allow you the leeway to ask on that question, but bear in mind that those types of answers have often been a manner of speaking. Carry on.
FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Well, I just want to put to you that at page 26 of bundle 2 of the record, Mrs Malaza, whom you say was the mother of Lindi, gave evidence to say that she heard about the attack and she says at the bottom
"As to why they were killed, we don't know. They were killed because they were members of the ANC."
Would you say that would apply to Joseph as well?
CHAIRPERSON: In which context was that question raised with them, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: I'm sorry Chairperson?
CHAIRPERSON: In which context was the question addressed to the mother? Was it in respect of Lindiwe and her husband, or ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: As well as Joseph, Chairperson, the way I read it. The children. She spoke to, unfortunately I don't know what the name is of the person, but if you turn to page 25 you will see, the second last paragraph
"MS SEROTHE: Thank you Mrs Pahle for that very sad account ..."
...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Page what, did you say?
MR VISSER: Page 25
"...of what happened to George and Lindi and Joseph."
And then ...(intervention)
MR BERGER: But Chairperson, at the top of 26, the question is
"Just to add, if there is anything to add about Lindi?"
Then Mrs Malaza talks.
MR VISSER: Yes and then she goes on Chairperson to the bottom of page 26 and as I read it, she says
"They were killed because they were members of the ANC."
Now you must bear in mind that they were all in the same house at the time, according to the evidence, so it could only have referred to them as children and it was on that basis that the question was put and I'm simply asking her this, whether she thinks that that refers to Joseph, yea or nay?
MR BERGER: Chairperson, how can this witness answer as to what another witness meant in evidence?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, by the nature of this attack, the intended targets were members or people who were normally resident in Botswana. I think it's common cause that Joseph was not an ordinary resident of Botswana, is that not so?
MR VISSER: I concede that, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: And he was killed in that, or during that attack.
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Does his membership of the ANC, while he was in South Africa, matter?
MR VISSER: Well Chairperson it would, in my submission, because that would matter as far as his classification as an innocent bystander, or a member of that political organisation.
CHAIRPERSON: Wouldn't you concede that given the targets of that attack, whether Joseph was a member of the ANC or not is irrelevant?
MR VISSER: Well Chairperson, not because ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Because the purpose of that attack was not to go attack members of the ANC who were resident in South Africa, is that not so?
MR VISSER: No certainly not, from that point of view, I accept that, Chairperson. Is your point that my questions are going nowhere?
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR VISSER: Thank you, then I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Ms Malaza, you're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR BERGER: Chairperson, the next witness ...
CHAIRPERSON: Yes Mr Berger.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. The next witness is Ms Felicity Anderson. Her statement is at pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit D.
FELICITY ANDERSON: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Anderson, your statement is at pages 6 and 7 of Exhibit D. You have your statement before you, is that correct?
MS ANDERSON: That's correct.
MR BERGER: Do you confirm that that is your statement and that the contents of the statement are true and correct?
MS ANDERSON: I do.
MR BERGER: Ms Anderson, you are also know as Muff, is that correct?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR BERGER: Can you tell the Committee where you are presently employed?
MS ANDERSON: I'm presently employed in the City Manager's office in Johannesburg Council. I'm an Executive Officer of Communications.
MR BERGER: Now at the time, or let's go back prior to the raid. When did you arrive in Botswana?
MS ANDERSON: In October 1981.
MR BERGER: And you remained in Botswana, or resident in Botswana from that time until you were told to leave, is that correct?
MS ANDERSON: With the exception of excursions out of Botswana for military training and some political work outside, I was resident yes.
MR BERGER: And when were you told to leave Botswana?
MS ANDERSON: A week after the Botswana raid, when the house in which the Mike Hamlyn was killed, was attacked. The Botswana Government came to visit me and said they suspected that I was actually the target of the attack, they could not protect me, and they gave me 24 hours notice to leave Botswana. I was later put on a list, I was listed in the Government Gazette and made a prohibited immigrant.
MR BERGER: That was in Botswana?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR BERGER: Ms Anderson, let's go back to the period from 81 through to 85. Can you tell the Committee what life was like in Gaberone? The culture of the exile community, the South African exile community in Gaberone?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, I would be interested to know how that is relevant to the present hearing.
CHAIRPERSON: I was just wondering that myself. What's you answer to that Mr ...?
MR BERGER: Chairperson, I think I submitted its important to know, to have an understanding of what this raid actually did. What this raid did to the community, the ANC community in Gaberone and it's important to not ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Would it be any different from our experience within the country those days?
MR BERGER: Yes, I submit it was.
CHAIRPERSON: Alright.
MR BERGER: Well perhaps Ms Anderson can explain.
CHAIRPERSON: Besides from that, of what relevance is it going to be to us when making a determination in this hearing?
MR BERGER: Well Chairperson, because, well let me say what I intend to argue and then it will become relevant. I intend to argue that this nice distinction that the applicants have sought to draw between who were targets of the raid and who were not targets of the raid, between people involved in political work as opposed to people involved in military work and it was only the military people who were targets of the raid, I submit that that is a lie, that is not a distinction that was drawn at the time, that in fact the South African authorities were out to teach the ANC a lesson and because of the attacks which had emanated from Botswana, as the evidence has been, that there were attacks into South Africa, the South African forces, we know from Mr McPherson, knew that there was going to be a conference in Kabwe at the time, they knew that a lot of high ranking people were going to be out of Botswana at the time, nevertheless the raid was proceeded with and the raid was intended, I will submit, to smash anybody who was in any way linked to the ANC, be it MK, political or even people like George and Lindi Pahle, people who were connected to the ANC because they were friends of people who were in the ANC because they had parties, anybody who was remotely connected to the ANC was a target of that raid and what Ms Anderson can tell you is how the raid effectively snuffed out the whole cultural experience of what was Gaberone at the time, that's why this evidence is important.
CHAIRPERSON: It's a bit difficult to have with that, and I'm not saying it's unimportant, it may be very important in other spheres of our history, what you are telling me is that Ms Anderson will be giving an educated opinion of how that raid affected the lives of the exiled community there. Have we got any evidence that that is in fact so, that that was the plan of the raid in the first place?
MR BERGER: Well Chairperson, I will argue that, you recall how the evidence was led, in the beginning when Mr Visser went through Exhibit B and he asked his first witness who from Exhibit B was on the list of targets, there were a couple of people who were on the list of targets.
CHAIRPERSON: I made this point, Mr Berger before you, if anything that distinction may operate against the applicants. I speak for myself.
MR BERGER: The distinction?
CHAIRPERSON: The distinction between those that they saw were the targets as opposed to what you want to suggest and argue. I say the distinction, if anything, will operate against the applicants.
MR BERGER: That may be so, Chairperson, but my submission is that you will see from the evidence how certain people were originally on the list and then as the applicants continued to give that evidence, so it became vaguer and vaguer and vaguer.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm wary of that.
MR BERGER: As to who was on the list and who was not on the list and my submission is that it's important. First of all it's important for the applicants from the point of view of reconciliation, it's important for them to actually know, unfortunately they're not even here, but it's important for them to know what their participation in this raid, what it actually did, what are the consequences of their actions. But secondly, it's important from the point of view of full disclosure and also proportionality because I submit, if I'm right that the purpose of the raid was to hit anybody, be they military or not, anybody who was connected to the ANC, then that goes a long way to questions of proportionality.
CHAIRPERSON: Precisely. Now that's the point I made to you. Now let's assume for the purposes of this argument that that is so, that this Panel accepts your argument, how would what you propose to lead Ms Anderson on advance that argument, because we have that possible scenario in front of us already.
MR BERGER: Well I wanted to lead Ms Anderson, it was not going to be a long thesis, but I wanted to lead her just on drawing a picture for you of the community that existed immediately before this raid and the community that was effectively snuffed out.
MR VISSER: May I reply to that Chairperson and make it very easy for my Learned Friend? It has never been my intention to argue that the targets were anything else but the ANC, in all its forms and phases. The whole issue of distinctions was brought about in the cross-examination of my Learned Friend, so that's not going to be my argument that there was this fine distinction drawn between armed MK soldiers as it turned out in the end to be, as opposed to the ANC in Botswana. That is the purpose Chairperson ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not going to argue that point now, I'm just going to make a robust decision and allow this short evidence, that you promise, to be led.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. Ms Anderson in as brief a way as you can, could you describe the life of the exile community in Gaberone immediately before the raid?
MS ANDERSON: Okay, it wasn't, by the way, just the ANC community, it was also Botswana people who were living in Gaberone, it was expatriates who were involved in art and interested in art, as Ms Baleka testified earlier, MEDU, the cultural organisation, was the organisation that embraced us all. There were ANC members within that. Botswana, Gaberone ...(indistinct) the raid, were probably the most culturally active and exciting place to be in South Africa. We had Hugh Masekela playing one night at a club, we Jonas Gwango one night in a club. We had brilliant artists like Thami Mnyele whose art we had access to. We had Wally Serotse, one of Africa's most famous writers wandering amongst us, Willy Gosetsili, another famous writer. We had access to culture that we had never, nobody had ever had access to that sort of culture before and we were all involved and all producing and all writing, it was the most creative time of everybody's lives. People like Mike Hamlyn and Uriel who, although as Ms Baleka says, they were ANC members, they were actually on the periphery of the ANC community and working within MEDU. What happened as a result of that raid is that community was shattered, entirely shattered, creativity was shattered for ages and ages. Many of the women who were there, we had babies afterwards, we produced, we went on in other countries and carried on with our lives and made babies because we didn't want to just die, but creativity did die for a long time and the raid forced people to become more militant, so you had a situation where people who had been involved in creative activities, artistic activities, decided the regime is so irrational that it can attack artists, poets, writers, it is so irrational, let us take up arms, so although I had taken up arms previously, others had not and they did subsequently.
MR BERGER: Okay. Let's go to your statement. Thank you Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR BERGER: In paragraph 3 you talk about your work and you've already told the Committee how you were involved with Ordinance and Ordinance is a military term for supply of weapons, is that correct?
MS ANDERSON: That's correct.
MR BERGER: Now you met Mike Hamlyn in 1983/84, is that correct?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR BERGER: Just by the way, this house where you were living and where Mike Hamlyn was living at the time, I suggested in the first session of this hearing that that was the same house where Marius and Jeanette Schoon were living prior to them leaving Botswana. Was I correct?
MS ANDERSON: No.
MR BERGER: They were living in another house?
MS ANDERSON: They were living in ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: They weren't living in the same house ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MS ANDERSON: They were living in a block of flats actually and I'm not quite sure where, because I never went there.
MR BERGER: Yes and you corrected me when we consulted, is that correct?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR BERGER: Now this house, the house at Pudulogo Crescent, could you just describe for the Committee where it was precisely in relation to the University?
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on)
MR BERGER: It's in paragraph 4 Chairperson, on page 6.
MR MALAN: Is that taking us to a different position that we thought we were agreed on yesterday?
MR BERGER: No it's not, but that was evidence from me, it wasn't evidence from a witness.
MS ANDERSON: Well I would confirm ...(indistinct)
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MS ANDERSON: Basically what was described yesterday.
MR BERGER: Now you say that you can confirm that Mike Hamlyn was not a member of the ANC or MK. You've heard the questions before, well, how can you say he was not a member of the ANC or MK, isn't it possible that he was a member of MK and you didn't know about it? You've heard those kinds of questions. What is your response to that?
MS ANDERSON: Look it's absolutely not possible that Mike Hamlyn was working for MK and I wouldn't have known about it because the structures to whom I was reporting, would never have allowed me to go and stay at a place if there was somebody else working for MK. It was precisely because of the fact that Mike had nothing to do with MK, that it became a safe place for me to be able to stay in, because it was not the sort of place that would become observed, or noticed and Mike was an absolute darling, he was great at fixing computers and cars and very helpful on all those kinds of levels but he had absolutely nothing to do with MK. He was a conscientious objector and he was not about to go and join another army. He had left one army, he was not about to go and join another one.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he perhaps a sympathiser of the ANC?
MS ANDERSON: Yes, he was certainly a sympathise of the ANC, he was a progressive guy. I mean let's face it, the entire world outside of the very tight regime in South Africa, was a supporter of the ANC, so it's not, I mean it's not very hard to be a sympathiser of the ANC, the ANC was a human rights struggle.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not criticising him for it.
MS ANDERSON: Yes, I would say certainly he was a sympathiser of the ANC, but he was not an activist.
MR MALAN: The question was, if I heard Mr Berger correct, whether he was a member of MK or a member of the ANC. Are you saying he would not have been a member of the ANC either?
MS ANDERSON: When you say member, it implies a kind of card-carrying member. When I understand member, I understand member as a person working within a particular unit and reporting to a certain set of structures and I would say no, Mike was not working as an ANC member, reporting to structures. As a supporter and with the general ANC community, I would say yes, we would consider Mike ANC, in the sense of being supportive, not in a sense of working under discipline in a particular structure.
MR MALAN: Is you measure of membership of the ANC not a very personal one then, by your definition now?
MS ANDERSON: No, I don't think it's person, I think it's practical. I think that ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: When would a person be working within the structures and when not and then is that the measure for membership, or is there some kind of formal membership?
MS ANDERSON: We worked in quite tight, you could say cells, units, departments. You had for example Wally working in the cultural section, you had various people working in Intelligence, you had various people working in MK and it was quite tight, the way in which people worked was quite tight, there wasn't just a loose thing of these - these are also - what I would say is these were people who were supporters that you could feel safe with and trust to hang around with, but they were not necessarily carrying out instructions on behalf of the ANC, they were not.
MR MALAN: I'm asking this question, I think you heard Ms Mbethe's evidence where she said: "We regarded all these people as ANC people."
MS ANDERSON: ANC community. She was talking about the ANC community. You are asking specifically, almost like about card-carrying membership of ANC and I'm saying no, I'm saying these were supportive, progressive people whom it was a joy to be around and they were friends, very good friends, but not working in a disciplined way within a unit.
MR MALAN: Okay. Thank you.
MR BERGER: Ms Anderson, when you talk about people working within the structures, you mean people working either in political or military structures?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR BERGER: And when you say that Mike Hamlyn was not a member of the ANC, you're saying that he was not working within either the political or the military structures of the ANC?
MS ANDERSON: Yes, I'm saying he was a supporter, part of the ANC community, not ANC Cadre as we would say.
CHAIRPERSON: Tell me at the time of his death were you, were the two of you house mates still?
MS ANDERSON: No, I had actually left. I'd been on a weapons of war charge for about the year before and I'd been acquitted just shortly before the Botswana raid, but for 10 months prior to the raid, I'd been living in another house in Broadhurst and ironically Mike was the only person in Gaberone who knew where I was staying was who was going to be my future husband and the only reason he knew, was I needed my scooter fixed and he came to fix it and because we considered him such a safe person and not involved in anything and we knew he was not going to lead other people or be followed or there was no reason for ultra caution around Mike ever, he was the only person who knew where we stayed.
MR BERGER: What about Uriel prior to the raid? Was Uriel involved in MK activities?
MS ANDERSON: Uriel was not involved in MK activities. He became involved in MK after the raid and there's an example of somebody who became militant because of the raid. Uriel was absolutely not involved, we had actually tried to get him involved at an earlier stage and he wasn't up to it at all and he was again a very, very sympathetic sweet guy to have around. We knew that constant exposure to MK people could bring him into MK, but he was actually not involved at the time of the raid.
MR BERGER: Did you know Thami Mnyele?
MS ANDERSON: Very well. I worked with Thami Mnyele and Wally Serotse on the MEDU newsletter, we co-edited it and Thami I think was the gentlest man I've ever met. The gentlest, sweetest man I've ever met and one of the most brilliant artists.
MR BERGER: And what was he involved in in Gaberone?
MS ANDERSON: Art. He worked for MEDU and he was dealing with the graphics unit, he was working with Judy ...(indistinct) another artist and they brought art to ordinary people in an extraordinary way. Thami had this idea that you mustn't go and hang your stuff in galleries so that only rich people can buy it, you must have your art on the streets and when we used to have these discussions around June 1076, the art should be there on the streets for kids to be able to enjoy and sort of understand and relate it to their lives. It mustn't become something that just gets hung in galleries. He was a darling, an absolute darling.
MR BERGER: Do you know - well let me ask you this, were any of the people who were killed in this raid, involved in any way in MK activities?
MS ANDERSON: No. I have no doubt that they were targets, I've heard my name being mentioned as a target in some of the prior things, but the point is they didn't get me, they got other people who were not involved with MK. It seems to me the most shoddy intelligence work was done and it seems to me as well that there was a cavalier attitude, especially when I heard the evidence of that man Olifant yesterday, I was thinking: "Good gracious, were these people really responsible for providing information that was going to lead to the deaths of 14 people, including kids ..." ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What is worse, it was relied upon.
MS ANDERSON: And it was relied upon and that's what so scary and I think what we all realised, those of us who were survivors of the raid, we realised afterwards that there's actually no such thing of I am MK and he was somebody nice who happened to be there and paint, there's just no distinction. It didn't even matter, you could be in Botswana, have nothing at all to do with South Africa and you could be killed and you could appear in the paper as some sort of PLO agent which is what happened with Geer, it was completely shoddy and cavalier and so careless that wherever we went afterwards, one became frightened to become friends with just normal Zimbabweans, normal English people, because you'd think this person just by brushing with me, might end up as a target, they might get killed and some fantastic, fabulous story is going to appear about this person and what they were doing and suicide squads and it's all utterly made up and a whole country believes it.
MR BERGER: Ms Anderson, coming back to your statement, paragraph 6, you talk about the charge that you faced and you were eventually acquitted and you then moved out of that, why was it that you moved out of the house after your acquittal?
MS ANDERSON: In the court case, it went on for about a year and in the court case they kept mentioning that I had been staying in 2914 Pudulogo Crescent, so obviously as a trained operative, it wouldn't have made sense for me to go and live back again in the house where you know the address had been mentioned, so that is why I moved out and why I'd actually spoken to Mike and said the address has been mentioned here and we should move out and Mike said: "But why? I mean why would I be a target?" and I thought yes, true, why, because at that point we actually believed that there was some type of integrity to the SADF's Intelligence, we believed that they were actually targeting proper targets.
CHAIRPERSON: You mean what would be considered acceptable targets?
MS ANDERSON: Acceptable targets, you see, so I mean for Mike and I must say for me and I regret this to this day, but there was this concept of: yes, but of course, how can Mike be a target, how can he possibly be?
MR BERGER: So you moved out of the house and that was approximately 10 months before the raid?
MS ANDERSON: That's correct.
MR BERGER: Did you ever go back to the house? Not to live, but ...
MS ANDERSON: You know I popped in, Mike and Uriel were friends, I popped in. There were, as I said, all these music things going on, there was always stuff happening and I would pop in and say hello, but not much because in the period, I was more or less house arrested because the Botswana government gave me bail on condition I stay out at my parents' place and I had to report to the police station twice a week and so I was very kind of cut off from the ANC community for quite a long time, so I think it was really towards the end, after I had been acquitted possibly, I popped in, but it, I mean you know with all of us, we would visit each other all the time and see each other at the concerts and so on, so you can't, I think there'd be no particular system saying: "Once a week I went to Baleka, once a week I went to Uriel", or something, there was constant flow, we saw each other all the time.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR COETSER: Ms Anderson if I look at your statement, paragraph 3, you say
"Around 1985 I was working with the military structures of the ANC and was involved in Ordinance Work. In the main I was involved in the supply of weapons. I was very much a rank and file member of Umkhonto weSizwe."
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR COETSER: Then if one turns to paragraph 11, sorry paragraph 12, you say
"Having been an MK member at the time, I can confirm that when the raid took place, most of the senior MK members based in Gaberone, were in Kabwe preparing for the Kabwe Conference."
Well obviously what that seems to say is that at the time of the raid, there were a number of senior MK personnel based in Gaberone, correct?
MS ANDERSON: No it would imply that the people who were senior in MK were not in Gaberone at the time.
MR COETSER: That were based in Gaberone?
MS ANDERSON: Correct, but it's not a statement about quantity.
MR COETSER: Certainly. Now if one looks at the two quotations which I have taken from your statement, it seems to me to be pretty obvious that at that time and prior to this raid in 1985, Umkhonto weSizwe were using Gaberone as a base to carry out military operations in South Africa, simple as that.
MS ANDERSON: Gaberone was used in a very limited way and I have to tell you that in terms of supply of Ordinance, we were able to move so few weapons from there, we basically had to come up with other things, bigger things from elsewhere and so there was not a whole lot of military goings on because it was quite a narrow, it was obviously a front, all forward areas, all the areas bordering Botswana were areas we had to try to utilise. Botswana was not absolutely major at that point.
MR COETSER: Well were military raids being carried out into South Africa from Umkhonto weSizwe based in Gaberone during 1985, prior to the raid?
MS ANDERSON: I was involved in Ordinance, which is the supply of weaponry, so I wasn't involved in raids.
MR COETSER: What was that weaponry to be used for?
MS ANDERSON: The weaponry was to be used for attacks and so on, within South Africa, against targets that I was not involved in who went on those raids, who carried out those raids or even what the targets were, I was involved in the supply of weaponry for the purpose of that attack.
MR COETSER: I see. At the same time, if I understand your evidence correctly, there were it seems to me a good number of people, South Africans who had made Gaberone their home for various reasons associated with their opposition to apartheid and what they were doing at that time, was simply trying to get on with their lives and create an ordinary or fairly normal type of society in Gaberone, would that be right?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR COETSER: One thing that puzzles me, with respect, is why it is that Umkhonto weSizwe members who were based in Gaberone and who were obviously involved in planning and carrying out raids, military raids into South Africa, why they would so openly and freely associate with this community in Gaberone and thereby place their lives at risk.
MS ANDERSON: Do you mean place the other people's lives at risk?
MR COETSER: Yes.
MS ANDERSON: Well as I, I think I explained earlier, we had no idea that we were going to place their lives at risk until the raid happened. We assumed that if the South African Defence Force had intelligence, it would be intelligence about MK activities, it wouldn't be just some hodge-podge conglomeration about people painting pictures and people dancing and muddle all of that up into one big target. There was no knowledge, I mean we were people with needs like anybody else. We needed to dance and have music like anybody else, so of course we mixed in that community, but we had no concept that the intelligence was so shoddy and ...(intervention)
MR COETSER: I hear what you're saying, but you see another witness testified that during the course of 1995 there were constantly alerts, so to speak, where the communities were alerted that there might be raids, etc, etc, so it is quite clear to me that in 1985 particular and prior to this raid, both the ordinary South African community who were against apartheid living in Gaberone at the time and Umkhonto weSizwe within Gaberone, were very sensitive to the possibility of attacks at any time and any information that came through suggesting that an attack might take place, was very quickly conveyed to the entire community to be on the look-out, correct?
MS ANDERSON: Yes. I would actually even go further than that and say that from our side, from the ANC's side, our intelligence seems to have been better than the Defence Force Intelligence, in the sense that we had the understanding of when these things were going to take place.
MR COETSER: Yes, but the point is that there was such a high sensitivity towards the danger of attacks, consistent attacks, why is it then that MK members like yourself seem to have fraternised so openly and freely with South Africans that were living there, who weren't really involved in this type of activity, because surely to goodness under these circumstances there would always have existed the continual risk that these people that you fraternised with, may have been misunderstood by the South African Intelligence Industry, to have been more involved in the ANC than they actually were. Wouldn't you say that this fraternisation in these circumstances was negligent?
MS ANDERSON: No, I don't think so, because the other aspect you're missing is that we, I mean the struggle wasn't going to end with 3, 4, 5 people in MK, okay, it wasn't going to end with a community in exile supporting the ANC, it was a question constantly of taking things forward, recruiting people, mixing, meeting people, so there's the element, I mean you talk about it as negligent, I don't think the word negligence comes into it. What comes into it is necessity that one has to take, one has to develop the particular struggle in which one is involved. This is a struggle against apartheid.
CHAIRPERSON: I think to cut a long story short, what is actually being put to you, let me put the question to you, that isn't it true that all these people whom you say were on the frills of the ANC at the very best for them, were not actually frilly people, but they were deep down in the heart of ANC and they themselves were targets.
MS ANDERSON: No, I'm not saying that. I'm ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm saying what has been the questioning by the Advocate, he's leading towards that, the fact that you could mingle as MK members with so-called ordinary folk doesn't ring true, that's what's being suggested to you and therefore the irresistible conclusion or one of the conclusions is that they were not so innocent as you make out to be and there legitimate targets, can you deal with that?
MR COETSER: Mr Chairman, that is actually not what I'm suggesting or leading to.
CHAIRPERSON: Well can you deal with that then, if it was not being led, as if I've asked the question.
MS ANDERSON: So, sorry, must I deal with yours or ...?
CHAIRPERSON: With mine. What do you say about that proposition?
MS ANDERSON: That those people on the periphery were targets, is that what you mean?
CHAIRPERSON: No that they weren't on the periphery, as you suggest, but were much deeper involved than you would like to admit.
MS ANDERSON: Well, I can't, it would be a lie to say that someone like Mike Hamlyn was involved, when he wasn't. It's absurd that he was a target. I mean the people, you are talking about normal people, I mean we were normal people. Apartheid's the abnormality. Anti-apartheid is the normality. We were normal people.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay, all I needed for you to do is to deal with the possible argument that may come my way at the end of the day, that your friendship, the MK people's friendship with so-called ordinary folk in Botswana, leads one to the conclusion that they were not as innocent as you may want us to believe and in fact, they could be categorised as legitimate targets.
MS ANDERSON: But that makes no sense. Your statement makes no sense.
CHAIRPERSON: Why?
MS ANDERSON: Because they could not be categorised. I mean, people who are dancing and painting and being opposed to the system of apartheid, can not be classified as legitimate targets.
CHAIRPERSON: Maybe you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that that is so. I want you to deal with the possible argument that may come my way at the end of the day, that accepted Umkhonto weSizwe operatives were mingling with ordinary folk in Botswana, could easily lead the regime of South Africa at the time, to believe that those people were not as innocent as you would like us to believe now and therefore they were attacked, because they were legitimate targets, otherwise MK operatives would never have mingled with them.
MS ANDERSON: I can't accept the premise of what you're saying because you're saying that because MK people mingled with ordinary folk, therefore the ordinary folk became legitimate targets in a sense.
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the inference as a result of the mingling was that those people were not innocent, as far as MK activities were concerned, but were more deeply involved in that and therefore became legitimate targets.
MS ANDERSON: You see, I would argue that the inference, and if Mr Olifant's testimony is anything to go by, there was such kind of lunacy and idiocy relating to the way in which targets were selected, it seems so completely arbitrary and so I don't think they actually had a clue who were MK and who were not and I don't think they cared. I think basically they just took a map, threw darts on it, where the darts landed, they attacked those houses and then they created fiction around who died.
JUDGE MOTATA: Let's take your question that you, prior to leaving Pudulogo Crescent, that they had identified that house over a period, that is now the South African Police community and probably the community and the evidence before us is not only the persons living there, the building and the person and the evidence goes further and says, because in those houses there were people trading in arms or ordinance as you put it and they wanted to destroy those houses, now what emerges it's unfortunately you had left but you were an MK member in that house. Would you say that is reckless or idiocy as you put it, about the South African Government?
MS ANDERSON: Yes, I would say so, because the trading of weapons wasn't going on from that house. I had merely lived in that house and the address of the house had come up in my weapons of war court case that had gone on for a year, the fact that I had lived there, now I don't know how South African Defence Force and Mr Olifant and so on did their reconnaissance, but it would have become quite clear that number one, this person who was involved in a weapons of war case, had not been there for 10 months, that there were completely other people, that there were children playing there, that Baleka's kids were playing there everyday, that they were complete strangers to Botswana who had answered an ad in the living there and it was nearly a year later from the time that that place had been mentioned, so to me that is the most careless, ridiculous kind of reconnaissance, because as I say, there was no trading of weapons from that house. It happened that I at some point slept in that house.
JUDGE MOTATA: Now what about the thesis that much as you'd trained, because you were opposed to the then regime within South Africa, that if the South African Government viewed ANC, sympathiser or no sympathiser as their enemy, would that be absolutely lunatic as well?
MS ANDERSON: Well of course it was lunatic. I mean the South African Government was putting people in jail for wearing a Mandela t-shirt, drinking a cup with Mandela on it, so of course it was lunacy. The whole word - I mean we know that apartheid was lunacy ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)
CHAIRPERSON: But I want you to look at it from the perception of two opposing parties. It may be your opinion and other people's opinion that whatever I do is lunacy and I'm preserving what I'm having and say for this not to be destroyed, I must destroy my enemy.
MS ANDERSON: The point is I can't see it in terms of two opposing sides. I can see it in terms of a violence created by the Regime, which creates a resistance, the resistance, the fight against the regime comes up because of the regime's original violence, because on the one hand you have the world's most privileged minority, trying desperately to uphold their privileges and on the other hand you have a struggle, a world-wide and international struggle for human rights against that privileged minority, so I don't see it as a thing of two sides, I see it as some people working within the system, to the point of fanaticism regarding everything that is opposed to that, to the privileges of that minority as being dangerous. They see everything as dangerous.
CHAIRPERSON: Precisely, now answer the question from that point of view, that they brought their own call it convenient conclusion from that perspective. If it were to be argued to me or this Panel at the end of the day that yes, Hamlyn may not have been a card-carrying member, he may not have been a member of MK, but yes, he associated with a known admitted MK operative and therefore we at the time, even in a shoddy way, we thought that he was a legitimate target because of his association with an admitted MK operative. How would you think this Panel has to deal with that?
MS ANDERSON: I would say that I would be very appalled if you gave these guys amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Fortunately that's not for you to decide, that's for us to decide.
MS ANDERSON: You just asked how would this Panel, how would I feel ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No I'm asking how do we deal with that proposition?
MS ANDERSON: I would like to counter it with a proposition and my proposition would be, if this privileged minority ...(indistinct)
JUDGE MOTATA: No you're misunderstanding what the Chairman is asking. He says if we are faced with that proposition, how should we look at it, not what you are answering.
MS ANDERSON: I hope you would look at it in a sort of universal sense and that is that, by virtue of a charming red-haired man living in a particular place at a particular time, happens to be friends with a whole range of people ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Ms Anderson, sorry for interrupting you, but really the question is a simple one and I'm sure you're able to put yourself in the shoes of this illegitimate, shoddy outfit, doesn't understand the beginning of intelligence, by your definition, but you can still get in there and then viewing the relationship between yourself and Mr Hamlyn having shared the same house, maybe having seen him in some contact with you, even fixing your motorbike and assume it for a moment, from their perspective, would they not have told themselves: "Ah, they're still in the same outfit", in their shoddy way, wouldn't it have made sense for them to then regard Mr Hamlyn also as a target? I think that's the background of the question.
MS ANDERSON: And I'm saying no. I am saying no, he could not have been regarded as a target.
MR MALAN: From the perspective that I put to you.
MS ANDERSON: From their perspective.
MR MALAN: Alright, can you tell me why?
MS ANDERSON: If one had to just spend a day following Mike around, doing ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: No, I don't want you to tell me what he did and the good man he was, I accept that. The case before us is one of, as you put it, a quality or a level of intelligence that shouldn't be called intelligence. This is what you observed, having listened to Mr Olifant, but that's the perspective. You accept that Olifant's intelligence, as his understanding of intelligence I mean as a basis for your argument here, you didn't challenge that. Now from that perspective, wouldn't that have been a fair deduction to Olifant and he's not making the decision, he's simply reporting, for the sake of argument, "I've seen Hamlyn with Muff Anderson, they shared the same house. Yes, I did see him at that address, he fixed her motor bike which was broke" and he reports back. What would the - I'm not making a case for good intelligence, I share you opinion of the level of intelligence, but that's not the measure for deciding, necessarily.
MS ANDERSON: But I'm still saying I don't see, I fail to see how, if somebody fixed my scooter, that makes him a target for a raid. It's like saying all these guys who went into the army: "Oh why don't we just kill all their wives and all their children" because by association they went into the Defence Force, it makes no sense. It makes no sense.
JUDGE MOTATA: What do you say, because as a member of the ANC which largely the Act which brought us into existence, says we should look at opposing organisations or parties, that now if we look at all those who are ANC and attacked by the South African regime, wouldn't we say those are opposing parties, or organisations, whichever way you may look at it?
MS ANDERSON: All the ...(intervention)
JUDGE MOTATA: The Truth and Reconciliation Act which brought us here and where it's part of the Amnesty Process, says largely, look there are these categories you've got to look at, but what you first have to look at is that was it a political party or a political organisation fighting against another political organisation, in a broad outline, wouldn't we say the attack to Botswana, sympathisers are there, persons like you, that the regime, the military or South African Police were now attacking ANC members in Botswana, wouldn't that be - if I'm faced with that, how do you think I should approach that kind of argument?
MS ANDERSON: Well I mean I see it as a great act of aggression against a neighbouring country and we heard yesterday about a whole army being posted at Zeerust in case the Botswana Defence Force fought back. It's the most outrageous sort of tactic to use, it's I mean never even mind who in their heads were supposedly targets. They were - that man yesterday said they were prepared to actually turn Gaberone into flames. They were prepared to kill everybody in Botswana, if necessary, in pursuit of their aggressive tactics. I can't see it in terms of a party versus a party.
JUDGE MOTATA: Sorry about that Mr Berger, we took unnecessarily long time. We apologise. You were still leading your evidence.
MR BERGER: No, Judge, it's not me, it's Mr Coetser.
JUDGE MOTATA: Oh sorry about that Mr Coetser.
MR COETSER: Then to continue from where I left off, you seem to suggest that the intelligence agencies in South Africa ought to have been able to have determined by their spies in Gaberone, who was who and who was responsible for what and who was doing what.
MS ANDERSON: Yes, one would have thought that they would be a bit more jacked up.
MR COETSER: But wouldn't it be correct to say that carrying out the MK activities in Gaberone, this would have been done with the utmost secrecy because you wouldn't have wanted the Intelligence Community of the South African Government to find out exactly what you were up to?
MS ANDERSON: That's correct.
MR COETSER: Right. So in other words, you would have deliberately conducted yourselves in a way so as to not let the Intelligence Community of the South African Government know exactly what you were up to?
MS ANDERSON: That's correct.
MR COETSER: So why is it then that you make this statement, if that is the case, that you would have expected the Intelligence community of the South African Government at the time, to determine who was who, who was doing what and who was MK and who wasn't MK, etc? If you were embarking upon obviously a secrecy, efforts at secrecy designed to prevent just that?
MS ANDERSON: Yes, Sir, I think you're correct. I think we were secret and we were clever and we were not caught in terms of what we were doing, so it was very difficult for those Intelligence Agencies to detect what was going on. However, to have ...
MR COETSER: Thank you, you've answered my question.
MR BERGER: No, Chairperson, if the witness could, she clearly had more to say. We're not in an American court room.
MR COETSER: Alright.
MS ANDERSON: Okay, so I'm saying yes, we conducted our activities covertly and successfully and it was obviously very hard and they were not able to penetrate that, so what I am then saying is that in the, because they could not penetrate those successful activities and they wanted to make a statement about Botswana, they simply hit soft targets, they simply didn't care. They hit safe targets without proper intelligence, in order to make a statement, for whatever purposes, to the white tribe of South Africa, for whatever purposes, they wanted to say: "You see here we have your interests at heart", but it was soft targets, all of them.
MR COETSER: The point is that they wouldn't have had the opportunity, as you say, to spend a day with Mike Hamlyn to find out who he is. They wouldn't have had the opportunity to know that he was this charming red-haired man, as you have described. They wouldn't have had that kind of opportunity, would they?
MS ANDERSON: Well certainly not if let the likes of Mr Olifant loose and ...(intervention)
MR COETSER: ...(indistinct) really.
MS ANDERSON: Well it sounds like that is the way they were conducting it. They were basically letting people who couldn't even recognise who they were supposed to be hitting.
MR COETSER: Putting it another way ...
MS ANDERSON: It was quite clear that they didn't care who they killed.
MR COETSER: They would never have had the opportunity to get to know Mike Hamlyn like you did.
MS ANDERSON: I don't think they were remotely interested in getting to know Mike Hamlyn, or any of the targets.
MR COETSER: Just answer the question please.
MS ANDERSON: Well no, they wouldn't have, but nor would they care to. Nor did they care to, they just wanted to kill some people.
MR COETSER: One thing that interests me is that this fraternisation that went on between MK members in Botswana and the so-called ordinary community ...
CHAIRPERSON: Why do you call it fraternisation?
MR COETSER: This friendship or this communicating or this visiting with these people, was it not perhaps designed to confuse the South African Military Intelligence Organisations as to who was who, who was MK, who was not? Weren't you using them as a cover?
MS ANDERSON: No, they were our friends, genuinely our friends.
MR COETSER: Well if they were your friends, why did you place them at such risk?
MS ANDERSON: I think if you look at may statement, Sir, in point 6 you will see that I had suggested to Mike that because my house and his house had been mentioned in the court case, it might be worth his while moving out and I think that you will see in there that he dismissed this, pooh-poohed it because there's no possible way he could have been a target. There was no, on our side, on the regime's side there might have been a cavalier approach to who they killed. On our side there was care and loving of that community, it was a very loving tight community and we have never had a community like that since.
MR COETSER: But you, Ma'am just to finish off, you were living in a completely abnormal situation, you were at war with the South African Government.
MS ANDERSON: Correct.
MR COETSER: How possibly could you think in those circumstances, that you could try and create within Gaberone a normal society?
MS ANDERSON: I think at the beginning Danny Berger asked permission to be able to describe the type of community we had in Gaberone and there was a bit of debate about it, but this is precisely what we did. In this abnormal world, a world where people had been victimised in terms of colour, we had created an entirely non-racial alternative community based around things of light, or art, of music, of culture. We were a tight loving community, supportive of each other. From the time that that community was smashed in the Botswana raid, we all went on our own and never ever managed to reconstruct that type of community again, but basically what was killed was a community and a culture that was so exciting and so warm and so loving and everybody was creating and that's what was killed.
MR COETSER: I can completely understand and sympathise and appreciate what you have just said, but all I'm putting to you is that wasn't MK, Umkhonto weSizwe somewhat naive about trying to create that type of society in this war situation?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetser, where are we getting with this cross-examination?
MR COETSER: The point is, the tenor of the evidence that is being led by Mr Berger at this point in time, relates perhaps not so much to the technical legalistic aspects of whether the particular applicants should be given amnesty or not, but relates more the morality of the raid. All I wish to do is try and create some sort of balance in this process by indicating to the witness at this particular moment in time that it would appear that MK need to carry a degree of responsibility to what happened based on negligence and fraternising with these individuals.
CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Coetser as Mr Berger ought to know that the question of moralities doesn't enter the issue when we consider the Act.
MR COETSER: Yes, I'm afraid however that that is what has been happening.
CHAIRPERSON: Well you should also know that we're not going to take it into consideration as far as the moral point of view is concerned, because we're not entitled to.
MR COETSER: Certainly. That is all I have to ask. Thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR COETSER
CHAIRPERSON: Shall we take the tea adjournment?
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Ms Anderson, do you agree if I understood her evidence correctly with Ms Mbethe's evidence, that all these people that were attacked were ANC members, that she was not aware whether they were involved with MK? Do you agree with that statement?
MS ANDERSON: I don't agree that they were all ANC members. I agree they were all part of the ANC broader community.
MR VISSER: Yes. Now I want to ask you about that ANC broader community, that sweet loving tight community which you described to this Committee. Would it appear to someone from the outside as an ANC orientated or sympathising community?
MS ANDERSON: You mean someone from the outside, someone who was supposedly doing reconnaissance?
MR VISSER: For example, or anyone else for that matter.
MS ANDERSON: I would say it was a broader progressive community than simply ANC because as I explained we had Botswana people, we had expatriates, all as part of that broader community.
MR VISSER: And those Botswana people and expatriates, were they sympathisers with the case of the other people there who were closer to the ANC, if I may put it that way?
MS ANDERSON: In my experience the entire world ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: No, no, no, just answer the question. I'm talking about this tight, loving community, I'm not talking about the entire world.
MS ANDERSON: Would an outsider have seen this as being an ANC supportive community?
MR VISSER: Yes.
MS ANDERSON: Yes, I'm sure they would have.
MR VISSER: Thank you. Am I wrong if I heard you say that Mike Hamlyn and Uriel were ANC members, in your evidence-in-chief, did you say that?
MR ANDERSON: I said they were not in the ANC.
MR VISSER: Not in the ANC? But you then went on to say that they were sympathisers of that?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR VISSER: And you also stated that there was quite a material disruption of this community after the raid. Would that be also a disruption of ANC structures in Botswana at the time?
MS ANDERSON: There was certainly a disruption of the ANC structures. A lot of ANC people were asked to leave.
MR VISSER: Yes. And what about safe houses and so on, was there disruption as far as that was concerned, transit facilities?
MS ANDERSON: I left within a week of the raid, I've no idea what happened to various safe houses.
MR VISSER: Fair enough. Fair enough. I just want to get some clarity on what Commissioner Malan asked you, because I don't think that you really gave an answer to the question. The question as I understood it was this. Do you categorise an ANC member at that time as a person who was either a card-carrying member, or a person that was working in a confined ANC structure, in Botswana?
MS ANDERSON: I would - we certainly didn't carry cards in those days. I would consider an ANC member a person who was working within a unit, an ANC unit, receiving instructions on behalf of the ANC and implementing them.
MR VISSER: Are you now changing your evidence from a person working in a structure, to confining it to a person working in a unit?
MR BERGER: Chairperson, with respect, there's no change in the evidence. It's unfair to put that to the witness.
MR VISSER: Well did you say in your evidence in answer to Mr Malan's questions, that you considered an ANC member as a person who had been in a structure of the ANC? Did you say that or didn't you?
MS ANDERSON: In an ANC unit or structure receiving instructions and working under discipline, working under ANC discipline.
MR VISSER: Do you then consider a unit and a structure as one and the same thing?
MS ANDERSON: I'm talking about ANC units or cells. People working within ANC units or cells, I would regard those people as ANC members.
MR VISSER: Let me ask you again, you obviously didn't hear my question. Do you regard a structure and a unit as one and the same thing?
MS ANDERSON: I find that a very odd question, because a structure could be a much larger thing than a unit.
MR VISSER: That's the point, you see and I'm asking you again. Didn't you refer to structures when you answered Mr Malan's question, people who worked in structures were members of the ANC.
MS ANDERSON: By structures I was, and I think I explained at that time, you had cultural structures, you had political structures, you had military structures.
MR VISSER: Yes, thank you.
MS ANDERSON: And within those structures you had units.
CHAIRPERSON: Will you define membership again, please?
MS ANDERSON: Will I define membership again?
CHAIRPERSON: Of the ANC at that time.
MS ANDERSON: A person was a member of the ANC who was working within a unit, an ANC unit, attached to a specific ANC structure.
MR VISSER: You see, because Mr Berger only referred to political or military structures and this is really what this whole questioning is about because I was just going to put to you and I was leading up to doing that, there were also cultural structures and other structures.
MS ANDERSON: The cultural structures fell within the political overall structure.
MR VISSER: Yes, alright. Now you were a member of MK.
MS ANDERSON: Correct.
MR VISSER: Did you know the identities of all the other members, or MK members in Botswana in 1985 around June?
MS ANDERSON: I knew a lot of them.
MR VISSER: Yes. Can you tell us who the military representative in Botswana was at the time?
MS ANDERSON: There was a fellow called Victor who was the overall MK Commander. I fell within Ordinance Structures.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about Botswana?
MR VISSER: And who was your Commanding Officer in the Ordinance Section?
MS ANDERSON: I reported directly to Casius Maake, from Military H Q.
MR VISSER: Yes. Have you heard of a person by the name of Tenjiwe Mtinso?
MS ANDERSON: I heard of her and I met her later, subsequently much later.
MR VISSER: I see. And Thabang, Lambert Maloyi?
MS ANDERSON: Lambert Maloyi was at that point in charge of operations from M H Q.
MR VISSER: Was he not also the military representative of Botswana in 1983 to 85?
MS ANDERSON: He was the Commander of operations from M H Q.
MR VISSER: Not a military representative?
MS ANDERSON: He was the Commander of Operations.
MR VISSER: Do you have difficulty just answering a simple question? Was he not also the military representative, I'm asking you.
MS ANDERSON: No he was, as I said, in charge of operations from M H Q.
MR VISSER: Did you know the location of all the transit facilities used by the ANC in Botswana at the time, in 1985?
MS ANDERSON: I only knew the ones which I was using.
MR VISSER: Yes, was the house where you stayed one of those facilities?
MS ANDERSON: No, it was not.
MR VISSER: Can you tell us which other houses were used?
MS ANDERSON: I looked after several safe houses.
MR VISSER: Yes. The localities of those safe houses?
MS ANDERSON: I don't have the addresses now.
MR VISSER: Alright. Can you connect persons to those safe houses, persons who lived there?
CHAIRPERSON: Well let's put it this way, make it easier for me. Of those safe houses, were any of those attacked on the night in question?
MS ANDERSON: No.
MR VISSER: What about the house where George Pahle lived?
MS ANDERSON: George Pahle, as far as I was concerned, was a taxi driver and as Baleka said, a socialite. I used to see him at digs.
MR VISSER: His house was not used as a transit facility?
MS ANDERSON: No.
MR VISSER: Would Ms Mbethe be wrong as far as you're concerned, or is it possible that his house was used at least on one occasions that she knows about, to accommodate a person, an MK person in transit to South Africa?
MR BERGER: She never said that Chairperson. She was speaking about a house not in Gaberone at all.
MR VISSER: Chairperson the evidence of that witness was that George Pahle was sometimes asked to accommodate people in transit.
MR BERGER: She was not referring to the house in Gaberone and my Learned Friend is referring to that house.
MR VISSER: And ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger and I must say I speak under correction, it would certainly appear to us as if that was the case.
MR BERGER: No, she was not talking about that house.
CHAIRPERSON: Well she may not have been talking, but it didn't come out like that.
MR BERGER: She said so, she mentioned another place where it was.
CHAIRPERSON: What place?
MR BERGER: I was leading the evidence, I didn't write it down.
MR VISSER: And we didn't hear it, Chairperson.
MR BERGER: I can tell you she said it. You can play back the record if you want.
MR VISSER: Anyway, I'm not going to argue, Chairperson, I don't need a concession from this witness in that regard, so I'll leave that. And it is in this community, this tight-knit community in Gaberone, where you met people like Mr Mike Hamlyn and Mr Uriel Abrahamse, not so?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR VISSER: Tell me and I'm not being flippant, this Mr Riaz Saloojee, is he also a sweet, loving person as far as you're concerned?
MS ANDERSON: Oh sure, he was my lover.
MR VISSER: Yes. And he was a member of MK?
MS ANDERSON: Only just.
MR VISSER: Well, was he or wasn't he?
MS ANDERSON: He became a member while I was living with him. He had previously been working in political structures. I coached him and he started to work with MK.
MR VISSER: Can you give us the names of any other MK members in Gaberone in June 1985?
MS ANDERSON: Certainly I can. A comrade with whom I worked whom we referred to as Fat Alan.
MR VISSER: What?
MS ANDERSON: Fat Alan.
MR VISSER: Alright, apart from Fat Alan, do you know any other MK comrades?
MS ANDERSON: No.
MR VISSER: That I find, with great respect, amazing.
MS ANDERSON: I knew a Gen Lambert Maloyi ...(intervention)
MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I interrupted you. Please continue.
MS ANDERSON: I knew him when he came through. I knew Casius Maake who would come through. I reported directly to M H Q, I did not report to the local MK structures.
MR VISSER: Yes. I know now what you think of military intelligence and the police intelligence during that time, but would you say that they were entirely wrong in considering Botswana to be one of the main springboards for acts of terror against South Africa during that time? Were they completely wrong?
MS ANDERSON: I would say probably about one fifth of the acts took place from Botswana.
MR VISSER: That's fine. I'm not going to place figures on it. I'm simply asking this question, was or was Botswana not one of the main ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: She's just conceded it, Mr Visser, even to the extent of one.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. So when you say that the use of Gaberone, I take it you're referring to Botswana when you refer to Gaberone, was very limited, what did you mean by that? The use by the ANC of Botswana as an infiltration route, that's what I'm talking about, I'm not sure whether we're talking about the same thing.
MS ANDERSON: For my purposes it was limited because I was involved with supply of weapons.
MR VISSER: I see, so from your point of view, from Ordinance point of view, it was limited.
MR VISSER: Alright, but from your point of view there were in fact weapons of war smuggled into South Africa?
MS ANDERSON: Yes.
MR VISSER: On many occasions?
MS ANDERSON: No, few, that's why I said it was limited from my point of view.
MR VISSER: Oh I see, thank you. Limited in that sense, not in the sense of a ...(indistinct)
MS ANDERSON: Yes, we didn't have a big enough operation from there.
MR VISSER: Yes, I see, but not in the sense of ANC operations as a whole, that's not what you're referring to. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you then.
MS ANDERSON: Okay.
MR VISSER: Alright.
MR VISSER: I have no further questions, thank you.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR COETSER: I have no questions, thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR COETSER
MR CORNELIUS: No questions thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger?
MR BERGER: I have no re-examination.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER
CHAIRPERSON: Panel?
MR MALAN: I just want to ask you one question Ms Anderson. In paragraph 6 of your statement you relay your discussion with Mike, telling him to move out of the premises because the address was then well-known after the publicity. Why did you do that?
MS ANDERSON: Sir, I think I did answer that earlier. I was worried that because the address had been mentioned in the court case, it could be considered a place that, or it could be targeted in fact. I knew that I was MK, the address where I had previously lived was in the court case.
MR MALAN: And just, did you say targeted? What do you mean, attacked?
MS ANDERSON: Attacked in some form. One never knew what form these things might come in.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: And this attack that you were not sure of, or which form it may take, by whom did you think that attack could possibly be launched?
MS ANDERSON: By the apartheid regime.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes thank you. You're excused.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR BERGER: Chairperson, the next witness is Mr Uriel Abrahamse.
URIAL ABRAHAMSE: (sworn states)
EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Mr Abrahamse, could you just clarify the spelling of your surname please?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes, thank you., My surname is pronounced Abrahamse and it is spelled A-B-R-A-H-A-M-S-E.
MR BERGER: So it is correctly spelled on the statement at pages 11 to 13 of bundle b, is that correct?
MR ABRAHAMSE: That's correct.
MR BERGER: Alright.
MR VISSER: Chairperson, he's just explained to us that it's not correctly spelled there, with great respect. He's just told us that it is spelled with an E at the end.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR VISSER: Then I've got different statements because mine says Abrahams, not Abrahamse.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Sorry that's your fault, not mine.
MR VISSER: May I know, Chairperson, whether I've got different statements from the ones that you've got.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger ...
MR BERGER: Chairperson, ...
CHAIRPERSON: I don't know what you gave to ...
MR BERGER: No, let me explain what happened. If my Learned Friend has a faxed copy, the statements that were faxed through, I'm not sure.
MR VISSER: Yes, it is.
MR BERGER: And that was what was faxed to my attorneys and then when they made copies of statements they used clearer copies which had not been changed in that respect, the name had not been changed, but I'll ask Mr ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Does it matter Mr Visser if you make the amendment?
MR VISSER: No, it doesn't matter to me as long as I'm certain that I'm working on the same statement that my Learned Friend is working on.
MR BERGER: There may be a comma or a full stop different, but I can assure my Learned Friend that they're the same statements.
MR VISSER: Explanation accepted, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, Mr Berger, continue.
MR BERGER: Mr Abrahamse, I'm going to ask you, first of all the statement at page 11 to 13 of bundle D, do you confirm that that is your statement and that the contents of that statement are true and correct?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I would like to confirm that it is my statement. I have one minor correction to point out on the first page in the paragraph marked number 2, the second sentence where it says
"I was living..."
I think it should read:
"I had lived at the house..."
because if you were to interpret I was living, it means that I was there at the time of the raid, which I was not, but I had lived at that house.
MR MALAN: Just to make absolutely sure, you were living at some other place at that stage?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes.
MR MALAN: Permanently at some other address.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes.
MR MALAN: So by the time of the raid you had moved?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I had moved out of that house.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR BERGER: Subject to that correction, do you confirm that the contents of the statement are true and correct?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I do.
MR BERGER: Now, I want to - well let's start, is it correct that you had moved out of the house two weeks before the attack was carried out?
MR ABRAHAMSE: That is correct.
MR BERGER: You - when did you and Mike Hamlyn first start living in the house?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mike and myself rented this house where we were a group of four, it was Mike, myself, Alan Samuel and a fellow whose surname I don't remember, but whose first name was Gordon. We rented the house towards the beginning of the academic year at the University of Botswana in 1983, so that would make it either August or September 1983.
MR BERGER: You described yourself and Mike Hamlyn as very close friends.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes, we were close, we lived together for two and a half years. We started living together before we moved into that house. We had lived together at other premises before then as well.
MR BERGER: The two of you were also involved in the MEDU Arts Ensemble, is that right?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Correct, between Mike and myself we held various responsibilities within the MEDU Arts Ensemble. I was responsible for the distribution of the MEDU newsletter. Later on I became head of the Naledi Writers Unit. I was later on also a member of the MEDU Editorial Board. Mike was a member of the Naledi Writers Unit. He was also a member of the film and photography unit and he was the treasurer of MEDU for I think two years in succession.
MR BERGER: You say in your statement that Mike was not MK trained, neither was he a member of the ANC. Now you've heard the debate that's been going on about whether people were members of the ANC or supporters of the ANC, or part of the ANC community in Gaberone. Having regard to that debate, how would define Mike Hamlyn?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mr Chair with your permission I would first of all like to clarify the circumstances because it appears that there is some confusion in this regard. It's not everybody who left South Africa as a political activist and being absorbed immediately into ANC structures, in the way in which we've heard Ms Anderson talking about being absorbed into ANC structures. Lots of people just left the country, either legally by means of crossing the border by means of a passport, or illegally by means of skipping the border. When you get to Botswana, or let me say when we got to Botswana, you were required to apply for refugee status. That involved going to the police station and declaring yourself a refugee. The standard procedure of the Botswana police was to ask you, do you want to join the ANC, do you want to join the PAC, do you want to join the - AZAPO didn't have any organisation in Botswana, it was called the Black Consciousness Movement. The Botswana Police would ask you do you want to join the BCM or did you not want to join any organisation. The ANC was the only organisation which had a clear organised presence in Botswana in the sense of having had what was then called a Chief Representative. In the even where you said that you wanted to join the ANC, the Botswana police would call the ANC chief representative, who at the time was Mr Isaac Makoko and Mr Makoko would come to you and would require two things. The first is he would require you to write what was called a biography. In other words you had to write a statement about your life up to the point where you arrived in Botswana. The second is that Mr Makoko would require from you a decision as to whether you wanted to study or whether you wanted to join MK and that was standard procedure for the majority of people who left the country and became ANC members. In the even where you wanted to study, there would be further options available. It was possible to remain in Botswana and study there or it was possible for the ANC to take you from Botswana to Tanzania to Somafko, to Solomon Mahlango Freedom College where you would await the opportunity for a scholarship. I think the distinguishing factor between remaining in Botswana and going to Somafko was your choice of study. The University of Botswana for instance could not offer a course in architecture and therefore one of the chaps who lived with us, Alan Samuel, wanted to become an architect, had to leave Botswana, go to Somafko from where he went to German, he is now a successful architect practising in Germany. That was the procedure. Further to that, if you had indicated that you wanted to undergo military training or you wanted to undertake a course of study which was not offered in Botswana, you would be taken to live in Dukwe refugee camp, which is not too far from Francistown in the Northern part, well it's really central Botswana, but in terms of the road which crosses through Botswana, its in the North. You would be required to live at Dukwe Refugee Camp until such time as the facilities were there for you to leave and then undertake your course of study, so if we were to take the definition offered by Ms Anderson, in other words of a person being an ANC member who is active within a unit of the ANC who is receiving direct political instructions, then Mike was not a member of the ANC. Does that answer your question.
MR BERGER: Well you described a whole process of what would happen when you came to Botswana. Do you know whether, when Mike came to Botswana, he declared himself as a refugee?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes, he did declare himself as a refugee.
MR BERGER: And do you know what his choice was when offered either studies or military training?
MR ABRAHAMSE: His choice was to join the ANC, number one, and number two, to study at the University of Botswana.
MR BERGER: And what was he studying?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mike was doing a BSc. He had, in my understanding, he had already completed the first year of his BSc at the University of Natal, Durban campus, and he was accredited with that first year, he was allowed to proceed straight into his second year at the University of Botswana.
MR BERGER: Was he involved in any way in military training, or military activities?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, Mike was never involved in military activities and Mike certainly had not undergone MK training.
MR BERGER: And you ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Mr Berger just before you pursue this, you used the definition of Ms Anderson, Mr Abrahamse, but in explaining to us the procedure when crossing the border, if I'm not mistaken, I heard you saying that you had to call at the Botswana Police Refugee status, they would ask you which organisation did you want to join. If you did say the ANC, then they would call Isaac Makoko as the representative. He would ask you to do a biography. As far as the Botswana police is concerned, were they thinking that those people were joining the organisations? In other words, what would that understanding of membership be? Could there be a different understanding of membership?
MR ABRAHAMSE: That is what I am suggesting Mr Chair. I am saying that officially in terms of a membership status, a membership card type of status, as Ms Mbethe had said earlier, we were all members of the ANC, Mike and myself, we were officially members of the ANC in the sense that we had submitted our biographies and we had said to Mr Makoko that we wanted to join the ANC and that we had generally accepted to live in Botswana as students belonging to the ANC.
MR MALAN: I understand.
MR ABRAHAMSE: We were not required, because of our student status, we were not required to be involved in structured political or military activities.
MR MALAN: Thank you, I understand. Thank you.
MR BERGER: You say you were not required, were you or Mike Hamlyn involved in structured political or military political activities, or any political or military activities?
MR ABRAHAMSE: We were never involved in military or political activities. We were involved in the MEDU Arts Ensemble, as I explained earlier and I did explain also the nature of our involvement in the MEDU Arts Ensemble.
MR BERGER: Would you regard the MEDU Arts Ensemble as a cultural structure?
MR ABRAHAMSE: It was most certainly a cultural structure, Mr Chair, in the broad sense of the word. Not an ANC cultural structure, it was a cultural organisation. I mean, I'll give you an example. At one stage I was responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the children's unit in MEDU and on June 1, which is International Children's day, we had arranged a cultural day for children at the museum in Gaberone where we took the children around through the museum, explained to them the value of a museum. We had a juggler there, we had people teaching the children how to draw. Yes it was to do with the arts and culture.
MR MALAN: I think perhaps I haven't expressed myself all too clearly. Ms Anderson's evidence was that there were ANC Units in all of the structures. I think she regarded structural structures as political. My question is really was there sort of an ANC call it then a cultural unit within the MEDU Arts Council? Did the ANC have a particular interest as ANC in MEDU Arts?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I cannot say that Mr Chair, I did not participate in structured ANC activities, therefore I do not know whether the ANC regarded MEDU Arts Ensemble as an ANC front.
CHAIRPERSON: But, or MEDU regard itself as a structure of the ANC?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I am not too certain about that Mr Chair. As far as I know, throughout my involvement in MEDU, MEDU never regarded itself as an ANC structure.
CHAIRPERSON: Let's put it into time perspective. Maybe 6 months either side of the attack that we're discussing now, was MEDU, did it regard itself as possibly a arm or a tentacle of the ANC?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I can't say about after the attack Mr Chairman because ...
CHAIRPERSON: Okay 6 months before?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Six months before the attack, I have to say no, MEDU did not see itself as an extension of the ANC, or as a cultural front of the ANC. There were other cultural structures that I do know about which I did not have any interaction with, which I know were closely aligned to the ANC, much more so than MEDU Arts Ensemble.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson. Mr Abrahamse, you explain in your statement in paragraph 5.1 through to 5.6 why it was that you moved out of the house. Then in your place moved in the Geer couple, that couple, the Geer couple, did they have any ANC links?
MR ABRAHAMSE: The Geer couple had no links whatsoever to the ANC. If you refer to paragraph 5.6 I say there quite clearly that the Geer couple responded to an advertisement and sub-let the main house from Mike and myself. They had no links to the ANC. I would be surprised if they even knew that Mike and myself were exiles or refugees. I do not think that they were even aware of that.
MR BERGER: Mr Geer was killed in the attack, Mrs Geer was not, she was wounded.
MR ABRAHAMSE: That is correct.
MR BERGER: And is it correct that she was pregnant at the time?
MR ABRAHAMSE: She was four months pregnant at the time. I learned recently that she gave birth to a boy in November 1985.
MR BERGER: You say in paragraph 7 at page 13 that
"Having lived in Botswana for a period of two and a half years before the raid, I was familiar with some of those who were killed I can positively state that none of them were involved in any way in military operations."
Who are those people that you are referring to?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I'll make an example of Thami Mnyele. Thami and I used to have a friendly rivalry about music. Prior to my arrival in Botswana, Thami always had the best collection of South African music and I over a very short period of time, managed to build up what was considered an even better collection with the result that Thami and I often spoke and we spoke about music, we spoke about the arts, we spoke about culture and after the raid, I went with Thami's wife to their house for her to collect some of her things. That is how close I was to both Thami and his wife and I know definitely that Thami was not involved in military activities. I can say the same about Mike Hamlyn, I can say exactly the same about Ahmed Geer, I'm saying that those are three people that I know who were killed and who had no role at all in military operations.
MR BERGER: As a refugee did you ever receive the supplies that Ms Mbethe was talking about?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mr Chair, yes, we did receive supplies from the ANC. Sometimes it was not only supplies, sometimes it was also money to pay for the gas, to pay for the water and electricity, I think the term used at the time, I don't know the origin of the term and I don't know how to spell it, but the term used was "Arbein" and we sometimes received that, but I think ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Just mention that word again.
MR ABRAHAMSE: It was called arbein. That was the word.
MR MALAN: If you had phonetically to spell it?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I wouldn't have a clue.
MR MALAN: Arbein?
MR ABRAHAMSE: As in eisbein, except with an r at the front, but where it comes from I don't know, I really don't have a clue where the word comes from, but I think what needs to be said is, on the question of supplies, it must be borne in mind that Botswana had a very organised United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and because the ANC had an organised presence in Botswana, you would say for instance find that at Dukwe Refugee Camp there would be 50 ANC refugees waiting for the opportunity to move on to Zambia or Tanzania or wherever. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, would give the ANC 50 steel cots with mattresses for these people to sleep on. They would give the ANC the supply of sardines, of cooking oil, of mielie pap and so on, which would be delivered to the ANC in bulk, which the ANC would have to transport to its members in Dukwe Refugee Camp, or to its members in other parts of Botswana because refugees did not all simply live in Dukwe Refugee Camp. So I wanted to say this on the question of the delivery of supplies, that in my opinion and later on after I had completed my military training, I became Regional Treasurer of the ANC in Angola where I was directly responsible for what we termed logistics, which was the supply of all basic foodstuff, deodorant, buckets, everything, face cloths, underwear, to all ANC members living in Botswana and that is a full-time occupation. The receiving of the supplies, the delivery of the supplies, making sure that you don't run out of supplies etc., it is a full-time occupation and I do feel that it is necessary to clarify that and it would be, even in Angola, which was the safest place of the ANC, even in Angola, logistics was totally separate from Ordinance. We dealt with food supplies, with clothing, with furniture, with building material, etc. Weapons was dealt with by a completely separate branch, they stood totally alone, so that even in a situation where we were completely safe, there was no way in which supplies included your weapons and ordinances.
MR BERGER: Mr Abrahamse about your military training. When did you join MK and then go off for military training?
MR ABRAHAMSE: The day after the raid I was taken into protective custody by the Botswana police, I was kept there for a few days, if I remember correctly, in the course of which they made it quite clear to me that the couldn't guarantee my safety. I therefore spoke to the ANC Chief Rep and together we went to see the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. They arranged for me to fly from Botswana via Zimbabwe to Zambia. We over-nighted in Zimbabwe for one night and it was my decision immediately after the raid that I wanted to join MK, I wanted to be able to fight back on equal terms, with these chaps. In fact, during my military training when we had to go for shooting lessons, I would often be unable to see the target, I would only see a brown uniform, as a consequence of which I shot very, very well, to the extent that as a trainee I was given the responsibility of carrying the company machine gun in my platoon and immediately after my basic training, I was trained in anti-aircraft artillery because of the way, up to day, I visit the shooting range regularly and my average in shooting, even with a pistol, is in excess of 95% accuracy, so I want to say that I started my military training after the raid into Botswana. I think I started my training around September 1985 and it was a clear and deliberate decision on my part that I wanted to be able to fight back.
MR BERGER: Because of?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Because of what they had done to my friend and what they had wanted to do to me.
MR BERGER: Mr Abrahamse ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Just in order - maybe we can save some cross-examination on this Mr Berger. Why were you called in by the Botswana police? Why were you told that they couldn't guarantee your safety? Can you tell us who else did they call in?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I really don't know who else they called in Mr Chair, but as I explained in my statement, I think it is on page, on the second page paragraph number 6, I was clearly listed as one of the targets of the raid. It went to the ridiculous extent where the Sunday Times of June 16th 1985 called me the Joe Slovo of Botswana. It was that ridiculous. I was clearly a target. These people thought that they had killed me and listed me amongst those killed. With the first news broadcast, I think it was at 5 in the morning, I was listed as having been killed.
MR MALAN: So you're satisfied that you were a target of the attack? That's your belief?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Well I mean, if you wanted to, you can consult the Sunday Times ....(intervention)
MR MALAN: No, no, I'm asking you just a question.
MR ABRAHAMSE: June 16th 1985.
MR MALAN: And you believed it? You accept that at the time you were a target?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes.
MR MALAN: Thank you, that's all, no intention to get anything else behind that.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you know why you would have been a target?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Quite honestly Mr Chair, no, I would not know why I would have been a target, but there are two things that branch off from the question which you asked which have arisen earlier today which I do think need to be covered somewhat. The first is that we did have, all of us, I mean generally, there was a perception that the Apartheid Regime was stepping up its activities in Botswana.
CHAIRPERSON: It may have been a perception then but it's ...(intervention)
MR ABRAHAMSE: It's not only a perception, I'm going to qualify that further Mr Chair. In the first instance in March 1985 they blew up by car bomb Mr Roger Nkadimeng, that was March 1980 and it was a complete over-kill, a complete over-kill. I mean that was in Gaberone yes, in a block of flats. I mean with Roger it was a complete over-kill. When I did my military training I learned that one normally calculates the amount of explosives that you use scientifically but that say 250 grams of medium type explosive like TNT or what the Americans call C4 and things like that, medium-type explosives, you require approximately 250 grams of explosives to destroy a railway track. In the case of Roger Nkadimeng, they blew up the car completely, the engine was lifted from the ground floor where it was parked and went through the roof of the flat which was two stories above. It was a complete - there was nothing left of Roger, except his feet. His feet just below the ankle which were still attached to the shoes. That was all that was left of Roger. That was March 1985. Then I think it was May 1985 when the Botswana police raided the premises in Mogoditsane and found a caravan full of ANC weapons. It was in the newspapers at the time, so it was clear that there was an escalation of South African activities against ANC people in Botswana. It was mentioned earlier that we had been alerted. It's true, it wasn't the first time that we had been alerted. Yes, we had been alerted. We, in response to the alert, because in the area where we stayed, there were Barry Guilder, Peter Richie, ourselves, Eric ...(indistinct), Judy Sideman, there were five houses which were inhabited by people who were either ANC members or supporters of the ANC and at one stage we had instituted a system where we would take turns to walk from the - at night, to walk from the one house to the next and just make sure that there's nothing untoward happening and the ANC always interpreted the question of the state of alert very seriously and it depended on the area where you were, on what type of action was undertaken. In Angola for instance in the training camps where these facilities existed, we would move to alternative bases, when there was an alert. In Zambia when there was an alert, the Security Department would visit each and every single ANC house and make sure that people were able to at least defend themselves. In Tanzania where we had large concentrations of ANC people living unarmed at Morogworo, Somafko, the Tanzanian army would be alerted and they would step up their activities. In the forward areas like in Botswana, there was essentially nothing that we could do. I mean even the system that we had of taking turns to walk towards one another's houses, would have meant absolutely nothing, I mean, considering what Mr Olifant said yesterday about 50,60 tanks and jet fighters and helicopters and things, it's quite pathetic. What we were able to do was nothing, so that was what follows from this issue Mr Chair.
MR BERGER: Mr Abrahamse, before the raid and while you were living, during the time when you were living in the house at Pudulogo Crescent, did it happen that Ms Mbethe's children used to come to the house at any time?
MR ABRAHAMSE: It was not only Ms Mbethe's children. It was her four children, there were the two children of Bridget Mabandla and Kuduleko and Fidel, there were the three children of the Tanzanian Magistrate, who lived in the same street with the Gosetsili's, there were the children of Eric and Nellie, there were the children of Judy Sideman, there were ...(intervention
CHAIRPERSON: So you're saying there were many children there at your property?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I was co-ordinator of the children's unit in MEDU, Mr Chair, of course there were many children at our property. It was literally, it was almost every day, I think the days when there were no children at our house, was the exception rather than the rule.
MR MALAN: That was in day time. At night time?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Sometimes the children over-nighted at our place. I remember a particular period when Duma and Ipo, the children of Ms Mbethe, holidayed with us for 10 days, for 10 consecutive days. They stayed with Mike and myself.
MR MALAN: When was that, do you know, can you recall? Let me put it differently.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Well I can figure it out. I'll take my time about it, but I can figure it out. At the time Duma was 6. If I'm not mistaken Duma was born in 1979, so that would have been 1985.
MR MALAN: What I'm really getting to is at the time of the raid, or at the reconnaissance which might have been in May then, probably in May, that Mr Olifant gave evidence of, were there people staying over, children over-nighting at your place that you can recall?
MR ABRAHAMSE: It would have been far more likely then than at any other time, Mr Chair, because of the academic year at the University of Botswana. The University of Botswana, their academic year runs according to the British system, with the result that we would have written our examinations and we would have finished them by about the beginning of May, towards maybe the first week of May, we would have finished our examinations then. In other words, for the last three weeks of May, it would have been far more likely that there would have been children there than at any other time of the year because both Mike and I were then free in the sense that we didn't have exams, we didn't have the normal kind of study pressure, etc, etc and we would then have had time to look after the children. It would especially have been more likely in the case of Ms Mbethe's children, because her husband was a lecturer at the University and at that stage, would have been busy marking exam papers and the children would then have especially then have spent time with us to give Bra Willy the time to mark his papers.
MR MALAN: I'm not sure that I get a picture, because when I asked you the question the first time round, you referred to an occasion where Ms Mbethe's children holidayed with your for a period of 10 days. Do you remember that as an occasion? How regularly? This is really my question, how regularly were they staying over, kids staying over? Was that every night, four, five, six nights a week?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, it wasn't every night. It was occasional. Their parents, like I say, Bra Willy might have been busy with exam papers, or Baleka would sometimes leave the country and I was the natural choice to look after the children.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
MR COETSER: I have no questions thank you Chairperson.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR COETSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Let me just understand this on this issue that you've just testified about. Just tell us again how long before the raid did you leave that house and went to live somewhere else?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I left that house officially at the end of May 1989, that gives you 14 days, well 13 days before the raid, seeing as it happened just after midnight on the ...(indistinct)
MR VISSER: Did you leave the house unofficially earlier than that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, I did not.
MR VISSER: Well why did you then qualify by saying officially? That gave the impression that you left before, but not altogether.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Officially because we were renting the house and we had to sub-let the main house and the sub-letting was done in terms of a lease and that lease is an official document, I therefore, officially I left on the 30th of May.
MR VISSER: Alright, in that sense. Now were you and Mr Hamlyn friends before you went to Botswana?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, I did not know Mike before I left the country.
MR VISSER: So you met him in Botswana, is that correct?
MR ABRAHAMSE: That is correct.
MR VISSER: And did you meet him as part of this close-knit society that Ms Anderson was referring to?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes, I did.
MR VISSER: You also said something in paragraph 3 and that is that there was a member of the Botswana Special Branch who lived next door to you which would have made it impossible for you to carry out any activities from the house in which you and Mike were living. Is that what you intended to say?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mr Chair, with your permission, I should like to elaborate slightly on this paragraph. It has been variously alleged that at that house MK activities were carried out. In fact there's a second-rate author by the name of Peter Stiff who wrote a book about the South African Special Forces operations in which he talks about that house and in which he says, number one, that it was a safe house, number two, that it was a - that Mike was an MK Intelligence Operative, that I was an MK Operative and various assorted bits of nonsense. A safe house in Intelligence Community is not necessarily in the first instance a house. It could be a house, it could also be a ...(indistinct)...(intervention)
MR VISSER: I'm sorry, I'm going to stop you. Your answers to do not relate to the questions which I'm asking you Mr Abrahamse. With great respect, if your Learned Legal Representative wished to lead you on that, he should have done so in evidence-in-chief. I'm going to ask you to restrict yourself to the questions which I'm asking you and I'm asking you strictly this question. Are you saying that because there was a member of the Botswana Security police living next door to you, that for that reason there could not be any activities undertaken or performed from that house, is that what you're saying in that paragraph? That's all I'm asking you.
CHAIRPERSON: Well what else could he be saying, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Well, alright, if it's obvious.
CHAIRPERSON: Well he's confirmed the contents of his statement, didn't he?
MR VISSER: What activities are you referring to there? What did you have in mind? And I don't want to know about Stiff and ...
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mr Chair, I think I've already answered that question when I spoke about activities, I mentioned a safe house, I mentioned MK activities, so it's clear what I'm talking about.
MR VISSER: Thank you. Thank you, that's all I want to know.
MR BERGER: But Chairperson, with respect, my Learned Friend asked for an answer which Mr Abrahamse was elaborating upon and then my Learned Friend then cuts him short because it's not the answer he wants.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger if Mr Visser didn't beat me to it, I would have. The question was not directed at finding out the definition of a safe house, etc. The point of the matter is, he was asked about the contents of his statement and he was asked a question about it. I don't think Mr Visser was correct to stop him and deal with it the way he did, but the fact of the matter is, the bottom line is that the question was not being answered properly and simply. Now let us stop this niggling asides and let's get down to the business please. Mr Visser will you continue?
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson. Did you know, apart from Ms Anderson and apart from perhaps Mr Saloojee, did you know MK members while you were in Botswana in June 1985?
MR ABRAHAMSE: At the time I knew many people. I only learned subsequently after 1985, which ones of them were MK members. At the time of the raid, I only knew Muff and her then boyfriend as being MK members.
MR VISSER: Can I make absolutely certain of what you've just told the Committee? After the raid, you heard that some of the people that you knew and that you had contact with in Gaberone, in Botswana in June 1985, were in fact MK members, although you did not realise it at the time. Is that what you're saying?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Just let me correct you first of all. I did not say that I heard, I said I learned subsequently.
MR VISSER: Alright, okay.
MR ABRAHAMSE: I'll give you one example. One example was a chap by the name of Chris, whom I met in the camps in Angola as an instructor. I had met him by chance in Botswana and I didn't know that he was MK. Another one was Thabang Makwetla, whom I had met in Botswana. I didn't know that Thabang was MK or was not MK. I learned that in 1989 when I met Thabang in Zambia.
MR VISSER: Can I repeat my question then in this way, or let me ask you this. Is the way that you found out that some of the people that you knew and socialised with prior to the raid in Gaberone were members of MK, when you met them and they told you that, is that how you learned of some of these members having been MK members at the time?
MR ABRAHAMSE: They did not necessarily have to tell me that. I mean I just gave you an example of somebody that I met in the camp as an instructor. He didn't have to tell me he's an MK member if he's instructing people in military training.
CHAIRPERSON: He says that at the time of the raid in 1985 he only knew of two MK members and he gave the names.
MR VISSER: Chairperson would you - let me put it to you then. I want to refer you to paragraph 7 and I'm going to read to you what you say.
"Having lived in Botswana for a period of two and a half years before the raid, I was familiar with some of those who were killed. I can positively state that none of them were involved in any way in military operations."
Now you've just told us that you knew other people who were in fact MK's but you knew nothing about it until you learned about it later.
CHAIRPERSON: So?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mr Chair ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Wait, I just want to understand the question first.
MR VISSER: Well, so Chairperson, I'm going to put to the witness that the possibility pertains also to these people, that they could have been MK members without him knowing that.
CHAIRPERSON: So you're questioning what he says here. Well let's go ahead and put it to him.
MR VISSER: Well if - I want to put to you - let me put it to you this way. There was no point in any MK members going about publicly announcing the fact that they were MK members, because they were at risk. Would you agree with that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: It depends. I mean, you - Chris Hani went around and made it clear that he was an MK member, he was at risk. He made it clear. It depends on the circumstances, it depends on the situation, it depends on a whole range of factors.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Abrahamse, I'm going to stop you now. Look at paragraph 7, your last sentence of paragraph 7.
"I can positively state that none of them were involved in any way in military operations."
You talk about those who were killed on that night.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Some of those, Mr Chair and I mentioned the three who are the some. I mentioned to you earlier about Mike Hamlyn, about Thami Mnyele and about Ahmed Geer.
CHAIRPERSON: No, just listen now. You were familiar with some of those killed and of those with whom you were familiar, you positively state that none of them of whom you knew or were familiar with, were involved in any military operations.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes, and I mentioned the three names to you earlier. I mentioned specifically Mike Hamlyn, Thami Mnyele and Ahmed Geer.
MR VISSER: Now the point's a simple one. If you didn't know about other people being members of MK at the time, isn't it possible that they could have been members and you didn't know about it?
CHAIRPERSON: Are you talking about those three?
MR VISSER: Yes. It's a simple proposition.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Those other people were not people that I was familiar with.
CHAIRPERSON: No, he's talking about the three you were familiar with.
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, but I'm saying he's drawing - he's saying to me that I knew Thabang Makwetla.
CHAIRPERSON: No he's not saying ...(intervention)
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, I'm saying that he's saying that I knew other people who were MK members.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let me take it easier and cut things short. Thami, you knew, you were familiar with him. In your statement and in your evidence now you say that in no ways you can positively state that he was not involved in military operations.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It's been put to you like you didn't know about the MK affiliations of other people, is it not possible that Thami was in fact a member of MK but withheld that information from you?
MR ABRAHAMSE: And I'm saying that I was not familiar with those other people in the same way that I was familiar with Thami ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Therefore because ...(intervention)
MR ABRAHAMSE: I did not spend days and days with those other people. I made specific mention of Thabang Makwetla because I met him once and then I learned in 1989 that he was an MK member. When I met him the first time in 1985 and I spent ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I take the point, Mr Abrahamse.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes, thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, does that ...?
MR VISSER: No, I took the answer Chairperson. Did you - was Thami Mnyele married to a lady by the name of Rhona Segale or was he living with her?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I don't know her surname, but her name was Rhona.
MR VISSER: Did you know whether she was at all involved with any MK activities?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I do not know what Rhona was involved in, or what she was not involved in.
MR VISSER: She was never - was that never something that you discussed with Mr Mnyele?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No.
MR VISSER: Did you go and visit at the house - were they living together, Rhona and Thami Mnyele?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I learned after the raid that they were living together because Rhona asked me to go and help her collect her things from the house.
MR VISSER: Yes. Was that the first time that you went to that house?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes.
MR VISSER: So you never went to visit Mr Mnyele, you saw him elsewhere?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes.
MR VISSER: When you were busy with cultural things?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Sometimes socially as well.
MR VISSER: Yes. I want to put it to you. It doesn't sound like you were such a close friend of Mr Mnyele if you never even visited him at home.
MR ABRAHAMSE: That's not really a question. You are putting something to me.
CHAIRPERSON: Then what do you say about it?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I would say that is wrong and I can substantiate on that. Am I allowed to substantiate?
CHAIRPERSON: You've already said you were familiar and you dealt with ...(indistinct - background noise) Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Thank you Chairperson, I'm just looking at my notes. Can I just make one point absolutely clear from your evidence? Is it correct that you said that
"Mike and myself (that's yourself) were officially members of the ANC when we were in Botswana."
That was your evidence, or wasn't it?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes.
MR VISSER: Thank you. Tell me Mr Abrahamse, why did you believe were you a target, was it because you were a member of the ANC in Botswana?
CHAIRPERSON: He said he doesn't know why?
MR VISSER: I know. I'm asking him now. Wasn't it because you knew you were an ANC member and that ANC members were targets of the South African regime?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I'm sorry, but I really cannot speculate on why the then South African Government should have thought I was a target or not. It really is way beyond me. I cannot speculate on that. In fact I think you should be asking your clients that.
(LOTS OF CLAPPING IN THE BACKGROUND)
MR VISSER: Yes, well I'm not going to respond to that. Can you - I just want to tell you what the information is that we have on Mr Thami Mnyele. He was well-known by the applicant Pretorius and he says he fled from Thembisa in 1979. Do you know anything about that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No.
MR VISSER: He was officially registered as a refugee in Botswana, do you know anything about that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No.
MR VISSER: That there were various reports about him from various divisions of the Security Branch of the Police in regard to his involvement with MK and the ANC. You wouldn't know about that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Again I think you should refer that to your clients.
MR VISSER: I'm putting to you what the applicants are saying, Mr Abrahamse.
MR ABRAHAMSE: They can say what they want to.
CHAIRPERSON: Have you got any comment about that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: None whatsoever, Mr Chair. I don't understand why these questions are being asked of me. I am not applying for amnesty. I am opposing an amnesty application.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Abrahamse okay, we've heard that.
MR VISSER: Yes, do you know whether Mr Mnyele was involved in SACTU activities?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, I have no knowledge of that.
MR VISSER: The evidence was that his wife Rhona was the primary suspect of the Security Intelligence Branch of the Security Branch of Soweto and I want to tell you what the information was about her, that she gave training in the use of hand grenades to so-called suicide squads. Do you know anything about that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, I know nothing about that.
MR VISSER: And that she had various agents operating under her, whom she also supplied with arms and ammunition. Do you know anything about that?
MR ABRAHAMSE: No, I know nothing about that.
MR VISSER: Can you deny that that is so?
MR ABRAHAMSE: I'm sorry, I'm sorry Mr Chair ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: He just said that he didn't know about it.
MR VISSER: Yes.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: So what's the point of him denying it?
MR ABRAHAMSE: And Mr Chair, the question is further that he is telling me what was the information of the Soweto Security Branch. I had nothing to do with the Soweto Security Branch, never have had and never will have, so I don't understand where this man is coming from.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not sure, we don't know, life has changed, the point of the matter is that Mr Visser is entitled to put his case to you and you're entitled to deal with his propositions. Let us deal with it on that basis.
MR ABRAHAMSE: I'm dealing with it Mr Chair by saying that I know nothing about the Soweto Security Branch,
CHAIRPERSON: Fine.
MR ABRAHAMSE: their information, their sources of information, how they processed their information and what they did with their information.
MR VISSER: Just in case this question has not been asked before, Mr Thami Mnyele, was he a member of the ANC as far as you're concerned, when he was in Botswana?
MR ABRAHAMSE: As far as I'm concerned, Thami was a member of the ANC in the same way in which Mike Hamlyn and myself were members of the ANC.
MR VISSER: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius?
MR CORNELIUS: I don't have any questions, thank you Mr Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger have you got any further questions?
MR BERGER: No further questions Chair.
NO RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Malan?
MR MALAN: No questions, thank you.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Abrahamse please, I'm going to ask you certain questions and please don't take it incorrectly. It regards only one issue. It seems to me that you were a calm, lover of nature and the arts at one stage in your life and unfortunately you were driven to take up arms. How do you feel about that at the moment?
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mr Chair, I'm going to tell you how I feel in three ways. Since this amnesty hearing started and I saw it on the news, I saw it by accident, I have had to go for psychological counselling. I have been diagnosed as having post traumatic stress and having something which they call survival guilt. I am currently on two different types of medication. One medication to slow me down physically to suppress the effects of anxiety and the second type of medication to suppress the mental effects of anxiety. I'm not happy. That's how I feel.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - mike not on) is how you feel about life and how you were affected by this raid. I'm talking about character change that you underwent and I'm not blaming you for it. Wouldn't you like to get back to your old type of life?
MR ABRAHAMSE: It's too late, but I did say to you I'm not - I'm happy in my life, I've got a nice fulfilling job where I am making a big difference to the lives of ordinary South Africans. I'm happy with my relationship with my wife, I've got two beautiful children, we live in a nice house. In that sense I am happy with my life. I am not happy with the way in which my life had to undergo such a drastic change and with that, my character also had to change, that's what I'm not happy with and that's what I'm saying to you.
CHAIRPERSON: I can understand that. But you seem to think that there's no way to reverse what has happened.
MR ABRAHAMSE: I'm trying. I mean I write poetry, I write short stories, I listen to music, I go for psychological therapy, I faff around in the garden and cut the grass and clean the swimming pool and try to be as normal as possible.
MR MALAN: I thought you said you had a happy life. I hear you also have to mow the lawn!
MR ABRAHAMSE: So we try. You can't ever get away from it completely, but you can try.
CHAIRPERSON: You know why I ask these questions, part of this Act in terms of which we constitute ourselves here and often a neglected part of the Act, is the question of reconciliation. Now reconciliation to my mind is not a question of forgiving other people who caused atrocities. I'm talking about the reconciliation in the interests of South Africa, getting this nation working like it should have been all these years. Imagine South Africa minus apartheid and its effects and that's the context I raise the issues. Is there no way we can get onto that road of what South African should have been? Because it's not what it should be at the moment. There's too much anger.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Mr Chair look, I'm going to respond to you in two ways. The first thing is that I don't think that this is the appropriate forum for you and I to be engaging in these issues. I've got my own views, very strong views about the whole Truth and Reconciliation process, the way it should have gone and the way it shouldn't have gone and for me to talk about them now is going to take up the rest of the day, so I'd like to invite you one day, let's go and have a drink somewhere we can discuss those things. Alright? That's the one way. The second way is, or the second response is, it is incredibly difficult to suppress your anger and to deal with your anger and to overcome those very strong emotions when you have to sit and listen to someone like Mr Olifant yesterday, out of whom, with all due respect, we literally had to drag every little bit of concrete evidence. I mean you take it from the morning, he started, he mentioned ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I know what he did and what he said.
MR ABRAHAMSE: He mentioned two names, Tom Williams and myself and the reason he mentioned those names was because we were not killed in the raid. Right? The later on in the day he completely denies having seen our house, okay. When he started he counted the vehicles at the house and when I gave Danny the vehicles at the house, I deliberately left out the motorbike. He raised the issue of the motor bike. Right? So I am saying to you that it is incredibly difficult for us to reconcile at, not only at a personal level when this kind of stuff is still going on, it is immeasurably more difficult to reconcile at a national level and get our country working. It's - I mean I was saying to Michelle on Sunday, my wife, that one of the things that really frustrates me about South Africa is the fact that these days there is no proper debate of issues. There's no proper engagement of issues. If you criticise Mr Malan, the very first criticism is that Mr Malan is a racist because Mr Malan is white and therefore he must be a racist. If I say that I think the ANC really messed up on the question of HIV Aids, they didn't handle it properly in my personal opinion, then I'm anti-democratic. I mean, I just feel that we must stop this whole - we must engage, we must debate properly and then we'll be able to reconcile. We must be able to debate these issues and we must come forward cleanly when we talk to each other. We mustn't come into the debate with hidden agendas, like the way Mr Olifant was coming in here yesterday. That frustrates me terribly and if that frustrates me, who is a fairly sober-headed fellow, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: If you don't ask people out for a drink.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Yes, let's go for a drink and then - no ...
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on.
MR ABRAHAMSE: With a fairly good educational background, you know, with a number of pluses on my side, okay, if that frustrates me, ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: What of the other people?
MR ABRAHAMSE: What about people who do not have the recourse to the psychologists that I have? You know, so I'm saying let's rather, let's please, if you don't mind ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No, I appreciate what you've said, but as a closing remark, it's precisely because of how you rounded off what you said, that I feel that people in your position should try their level best to get this programme working, which I also agree with you is not working like it should be. Thank you.
MR ABRAHAMSE: Thank you Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: You're excused. We'll take the lunch adjournment.
COMMITTEE ADJOURNS
ON RESUMPTION
MR BERGER: Chairperson, the next witness is Ms Busisiswe Mokoena, she'll be testifying in Zulu.
CHAIRPERSON: You said Mrs?
MR BERGER: Ms.
BUSISISWE MOKOENA: (sworn states)
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.
EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: Ms Mokoena, is it correct that you can speak and understand English?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, it's true.
MR BERGER: No, you can answer in Zulu.
MS MOKOENA: Correct.
MR BERGER: Don't listen to me, rather listen to the voice in your head. Is it correct that - sorry, the statement in bundle D at pages 3, 4 and 5, is it correct that that is your statement?
MS MOKOENA: That is correct.
MR BERGER: Have you read that statement?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, I've read it.
MR BERGER: Do you confirm that the contents of that statement are true and correct?
MS MOKOENA: Yes.
MR BERGER: Okay. You talk in your statement about your life in South Africa with your grandparents and you talk about harassment by the police until 1981, when you grandfather decided now it's time for the family to leave South Africa, to live a normal life in Botswana, is that correct?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that is correct.
MR BERGER: How old were you at the time in 1981?
MS MOKOENA: I was about four or five years old.
MR BERGER: Now you explain in paragraph 5 of your statement how you arrived in Botswana and then you went to the Refugee Camp.
MS MOKOENA: Yes.
MR BERGER: And you talk about how your grandfather, Mr Dick Mtsweni, obtained employment as a driver for the ANC. You see that in paragraph 6.
MS MOKOENA: Yes, I did explain that.
MR BERGER: Could you elaborate on the kind of work that your grandfather was doing at that time as a driver?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, I did mention that he was a driver. He was a driver in Botswana, driving ANC vehicles, transporting people and food and he would take people to the airport when the need arose and that was mainly to do that and also supplying food to the people, the ANC people.
MR BERGER: How old was your grandfather at that time?
MS MOKOENA: He was in his early seventies, even though I cannot say with certainty. Maybe it could have been his late sixties to seventies, but he was an old man, as I'm saying.
MR BERGER: Was his name Nkulu?
MS MOKOENA: No, I'm saying Nkulu because he was my grandfather. He was my maternal grandfather, that was not his name per se.
MR BERGER: Besides his work as a driver, as you described, what other activities was he involved in from day to day?
MS MOKOENA: He started attending school and he was also driving, there's nothing else that I can recall except for the two things.
MR BERGER: School, what was he doing at school?
MS MOKOENA: He could not write and read properly, so he decided to go to school, so as to improve his reading and writing skills to eliminate the need of having somebody reading and writing for him.
MR BERGER: And how often would he go to school?
MS MOKOENA: Daily, in the evening.
MR BERGER: Was that after he had finished his driving duties?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that was after work. He would then go to school in the evenings.
MR BERGER: You've already confirmed your statement, so I'm not going to take you through the details of the attack. What I want to ask you is in the last paragraph of your statement at page 5, paragraph 14, you say
"My grandfather was definitely not involved in MK activities"
MS MOKOENA: Yes.
MR BERGER: How can you say that? Why do you say that?
MS MOKOENA: I'm saying this because on hearing the name MK, I'm thinking of firearms and army uniforms. I've never seen firearms at home and I don't recall my grandfather being away, not knowing his whereabouts and he never had a uniform. I never saw him in a military uniform. That is why I'm saying he was not a member of the MK.
MR BERGER: Is it possible that he could have been involved in MK activities and you didn't know about it, besides his driving duties and going to school? Is it possible that he was doing MK work?
MS MOKOENA: I do not suppose so because my family was close-knit and he would tell us where he was going each time he left and he would be back home as usual. If he left in the morning he would take me to school and I would know that he would pick me up from school in the afternoon and in the evening we would expect him home, which he never failed and he would take his books and go to school and he was very open and had time for us and his family and it is for this reason that I'm saying there's nothing that he could have concealed from us, I mean anything about his involvement in the MK.
MR BERGER: How old are you now?
MS MOKOENA: I'm 26 years old.
MR BERGER: What work are you doing now?
MS MOKOENA: I'm still at school I'm not working.
MR BERGER: What are you studying for?
MS MOKOENA: I'm doing marketing.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
MR COETSER: Mr Chairman, I have no questions except I would like to state to the witness that I am certainly very, very sorry indeed to read and to hear what happened to her family. Thank you.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR COETSER
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR VISSER: Ms Mokoena, when you grandfather left to go and live in Botswana, did you immediately accompany him on that occasion?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, we all left, myself, my grandfather and grandmother and other siblings in the family.
MR VISSER: But your grandfather had two wives, if I understand your statement correctly in paragraph 5.
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: So did he leave with both his wives, or what is the position?
MS MOKOENA: No, the women stayed in separate residences in separate townships.
MR VISSER: Did they not leave with him for Botswana in 1981?
MS MOKOENA: They accompanied him to Botswana, yes.
MR VISSER: That's what I wanted to know. And would I be correct to say that you were 10 to 11 years old in 198 - what is your date of birth, do you know?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, 1974, on the 8th of October.
MR VISSER: So that would have made you almost 11 years old at the time when this raid took place in 1984, have I got that right?
MS MOKOENA: That is correct, yes, I had just turned 11.
MR VISSER: Yes. Well, and you've just told us that the two grandmothers, can I call them your grandmothers? Would that be correct to say that?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, of course, they are my grandmothers.
MR VISSER: Yes, they lived in two separate houses.
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Alright, we'll come back to that in a moment. You also had two uncles who had left South Africa, is that correct?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: Were they older or younger than your grandfather?
MS MOKOENA: Of course they were younger than him, they were his children, that means they were obviously younger than him.
CHAIRPERSON: But you know - listen to this. To be fair to Mr Visser, it wasn't clear whether your uncles were your grandfather's children.
MR VISSER: But I accept your answer. Why did they leave South Africa?
MS MOKOENA: Would you please repeat the question.
MR VISSER: Why did your uncles leave South Africa, do you know?
MS MOKOENA: They left with an intention of furthering their studies, that is what I was told.
MR VISSER: And do you know where they were in 1981, or rather at any time, do you know where they were after they had left South Africa?
MS MOKOENA: No, I did not know.
MR VISSER: Yes. So there was nothing wrong in telling anybody that your uncles were studying in a foreign country, was there?
MR MALAN: I'm not sure I understand the question Mr Visser.
MR VISSER: Was there anything wrong, or anything dangerous about telling anybody that your uncles were studying in a foreign country?
MS MOKOENA: No, I never used to discuss anything about my uncles.
MR VISSER: Why is that?
MS MOKOENA: I used to stay with my grandfather, not my uncles.
MR VISSER: Oh I see, so you didn't talk about them, because you knew nothing about them, is that what you're saying?
MS MOKOENA: Nobody came to me to ask anything about them. Nobody came to me to inquire about them until the incident that I have mentioned in the document here in number 3, in my statement.
MR VISSER: It's that paragraph I'm asking you about, you see. Now you were taken to a police station and you were questioned about where they were, not so?
MS MOKOENA: That is correct.
MR VISSER: Did the police question you as well?
MS MOKOENA: They gave me pictures of people and they wanted to know who these people were.
MR VISSER: Did the police ask you whether you knew where your uncles were?
MS MOKOENA: No, they showed me pictures.
MR VISSER: So when you say in your statement that they questioned you about the whereabouts of your two uncles who had left South Africa, that would not be correct?
MS MOKOENA: No. They showed me photographs after which they inquired as to whether I knew who these people were, that's what I meant in that statement.
MR VISSER: I see. And you also say in that paragraph that your grandparents had always warned you not to say anything, that is to the police I take it, is that correct?
MS MOKOENA: Yes.
MR VISSER: Because it would endanger the lives of your uncles?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, because it was assumed that it was a criminal offence to leave South Africa, that could be the reason why they didn't want me to say anything about my uncles. They didn't want me to say anything because I knew nothing in the first instance, I did not even know where they had left - where they had gone to.
MR VISSER: Well you see that's really the point, but let's go on. When you went to Botswana, do you know whether your grandfather and his two wives registered as refugees?
MS MOKOENA: I don't know.
MR VISSER: Now...
MS MOKOENA: Excuse me, or please repeat this Chairperson.
MR VISSER: No, I just want to know whether your grandfather and your grandmothers registered as refugees in Botswana after you left.
MS MOKOENA: I have no idea.
MR VISSER: Can you remember where you moved to when you went to Botswana?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, we moved to ...(indistinct), it's a rural area.
MR VISSER: Yes and what did you call that place where you moved to?
MS MOKOENA: ...(indistinct)
MR VISSER: It wasn't a camp, was it?
MS MOKOENA: No, as I am saying, it was a rural site, there were these rural huts and that's where the family was. There was a family staying there. I cannot say exactly who these people were, but I assumed they were relatives.
MR VISSER: And after you lived with the relatives, did you then move somewhere?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, we moved about for some time before we went to settle in another place.
MR VISSER: I see. Did you ever stay in a refugee camp?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, we went to some place called Dukwe, that is if I am not mistaken. It is around Francistown.
MR VISSER: Alright and then your grandfather managed to obtain a house or more than one house and then you moved to Gaberone, would that be correct?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: ; And you as an 11 year old, or 10 year old, say in paragraph 6 that your grandfather met various ANC members in Botswana.
MS MOKOENA: Yes.
MR VISSER: How do you know that?
MS MOKOENA: I say this because I remember there was one man who was introduced to us, I cannot say exactly what position he held, but that is the man who welcomed us in that place. He was the one who was looking after us in terms of groceries.
MR VISSER: And was he from the ANC?
MS MOKOENA: I think he came from the ANC because we were staying in that area together with him and that was an ANC area.
MR VISSER: So did you assume that the people who were living in that area were all ANC people?
MS MOKOENA: Correct.
MR VISSER : And is that why you say that after meeting various ANC members in Botswana, your grandfather obtained a job with the ANC, is that why you say that?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that is correct.
MR VISSER: And you then go on to say that, and you were asked about that, in paragraph 14 that you grandfather was definitely not involved in MK activities, do you remember saying that in your statement?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, I am still saying that.
MR VISSER: Now your grandfather, did he sleep at the house where you stayed with your grandmother Emma every night?
MS MOKOENA: I used to stay with my grandmother Elina.
MR VISSER: Elina, sorry.
MS MOKOENA: And that's where my grandfather used to spend his evenings. That is where we used to spend our evenings.
MR VISSER: Yes. Without exception?
MS MOKOENA: Yes. Even though he had left to go to the other grandmother, he would inform us.
MR VISSER: Yes, well didn't he stay with Emma Mtsweni some nights?
MS MOKOENA: As I am saying that if he went to the other grandmother, Emma Mtsweni, he would inform us beforehand and tell us that he was going to spend the evening there.
MR VISSER: Yes and you believed him?
MS MOKOENA: Yes.
MR VISSER: But during those times that he didn't spend the night with you and your grandmother Elina, you don't know where he was, except for what he told you?
MS MOKOENA: I knew. I had confirmation in some instances.
MR VISSER: You see, I'm going to put it to you that if your grandfather was involved with MK, there's no reason in the world why he would have told you as a 10 year old and placed you in danger with that knowledge. If you don't understand I'll put it another way. Do you want me to rephrase the question for you?
MS MOKOENA: No, I think I understood you.
MR VISSER: Do you have any reply?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, I understood what you're saying. Continue.
MR VISSER: Well the question is, you say - let's start again. You said that you supposed that your grandfather was not involved in MK activities here today, your evidence, because you said he would come home regularly and he would have told you if he had been. Do I have your evidence correct?
MS MOKOENA: Even though he did not tell me, I could have seen. You see if a person was an MK soldier, you could easily tell and if somebody was a member of a particular army, you could easily see that and in this case there was no indication at home to that effect.
MR VISSER: How could you easily see when somebody was a member of an army, as you say, or an MK?
MS MOKOENA: I think the person would have a uniform, identifying him with the particular grouping, he would have a firearm or firearms, he would wake up, go to work with the people that he was working with and there was nothing suspicious about his movements at all.
MR VISSER: And that's the reason why you believe that your grandfather or you suppose that your grandfather was not involved with MK, those are the reasons?
MS MOKOENA: Yes.
MR VISSER: I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR VISSER
MR COETSER: I have no questions thank you Chair.
NO QUESTIONS BY MR COETSER
MR BERGER: Just one, Chairperson.
RE-EXAMINATION BY MR BERGER: How often would your grandfather not sleep at home and tell you that he was going to sleep at his other wife's house? How often was that?
MS MOKOENA: Not often.
MR BERGER: Approximately in a month, how many times would he not sleep at home?
MS MOKOENA: That would be very difficult to estimate, but I knew it didn't occur frequently.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson, I have no further questions.
NO FURTHER QUESTIONS BY MR BERGER
MR MALAN: Ms Mokoena, I have questions related to two aspects. The first is, did I hear you correctly saying that the police, when you were still living in South Africa, confronted you with photographs, asking you to identify the people?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, they actually took us at night and they took us to the police station and showed us these pictures and questioned us.
MR MALAN: Did they question you in the presence of your grandparents, or did they question you separately?
MS MOKOENA: My grandfather and my grandmother were not in the same room and myself and the other people.
MR MALAN: And if I understand it correctly, you must have been four, five, at the most six years old and the police took you as a really young child out at night?
MS MOKOENA: Yes. Those things came as a surprise to me. I couldn't understand how kids were involved in this whole thing.
MR MALAN: The other thing is your paragraph 8 of your statement. You make a very specific statement about the 13th of June, the day before the attack, that a bakkie drove past, taking some photographs of your home. You say that was in day time, you say the day before the attack.
MS MOKOENA: Yes, that happened.
MR MALAN: Can you remember the time of day?
MS MOKOENA: I think my grandfather had just gotten home from school I think he used to leave school at round about 12. My school was not far from where we resided, but my grandfather used to pick me up from school and he would just drop me off at home.
MR MALAN: And you say you saw flashes of light. If it's in the middle of the day and they take a photograph of a house, why would one use a flash?
MS MOKOENA: I spoke about cameras because I saw them. They were these big cameras and the windows of the bakkie were tinted. The window was slightly opened and the lens of the camera was protruded through the window, during which time a picture was taken.
MR MALAN: But can you - what struck me was that you remember flashes. Was that a mistake? Was it just you saw the camera?
MS MOKOENA: I saw the camera and on seeing the camera being pointed towards the residence, I concluded that they were taking pictures of the homestead.
MR MALAN: Thank you.
JUDGE MOTATA: Ms Mokoena, did other people call your grandfather Dick Mtsweni Nkulu, because of his age, or was it just the family that called him Nkulu?
MS MOKOENA: It had become common practise to call him Nkulu because he was an old man.
JUDGE MOTATA: When you eventually managed to get out of the window, what happened to Thebogo?
MS MOKOENA: He remained inside the one room that we used to use, that's where I left him.
JUDGE MOTATA: Did he survive?
MS MOKOENA: Yes, he did.
JUDGE MOTATA: Thank you Chairperson, I've got no further questions.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes, thank you, you are excused.
MS MOKOENA: Thanks.
WITNESS EXCUSED
MR BERGER: Chairperson, the last witness was going to be Ms Rose Machoabane, her statement is at pages 8 to 10 of bundle B. Unfortunately this morning she received news that her mother has passed away and she has gone home. She's not able to come and give evidence, so unfortunately we will not be leading her in evidence. That then concludes the evidence from our side.
CHAIRPERSON: So there's no more witnesses?
MR BERGER: No more witnesses.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Steenkamp is there any other matter on the role?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman, there's only the application for Coetzee.
CHAIRPERSON: When will we continue with that?
ADV STEENKAMP: Mr Chairman at the moment I don't know what the position is because he's Mr Wagener's client. Apparently Mr Coetzee is available on short notice. I don't know if he's available now, but that's the only matter on the roll.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that brings an end to a long hearing. We've discussed the matter amongst the Panellists and we're quite satisfied that there's been an accumulation of evidence upon which we can make a finding, unless anybody has anything else to add, I don't propose to hear anything else. Is there anything else anybody wishes to add?
MR COETSER: All I'd like to say Mr Chairman is if there are any aspects in relation to Mr Olifant's application that you would like to hear me on, then I would invite that, otherwise I'm happy.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. You appeared for Mr Olifant only?
MR COETSER: That is correct.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, obviously it would depend on what the Panel has decided.
CHAIRPERSON: Well, we haven't decided anything yet.
MR VISSER IN ARGUMENT: Yes. Clearly the Panel has heard the evidence Chairperson and from questions put by the Panel, we are confident that the Panel has come to proper grips with the evidence and the issues and requirements set by the Act. We ask you though that if there is anything that you might consider against the applicants for whom I appear, that you would alert me to that and that we would be given an opportunity to reply to that, but Chairperson, all that I have to add is that really this is a very straightforward application and we don't have anything to add of fundamental concern.
CHAIRPERSON: What are you clients, let's see first. You appear for who?
MR VISSER: Coetzee, Pretorius, de Jager, Steyn ...
CHAIRPERSON: You went too fast.
MR VISSER: Sorry, Chairperson. If you looked at Bundle 1 ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Is it not all but Olifant and McPherson?
MR VISSER: Absolutely, yes, it's eight of them. Chairperson, might I just add that as far as the issue of what they are applying for amnesty for is concerned, they're all clearly associated and identified with the fact that there was going to be an attack, they all clearly there, after the attack, did not make public what their knowledge about the attack was, so we submit that as far as association is concerned in the broader sense and as far as defeating the ends of justice are concerned, all these applicants were clearly involved. What might be ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: But aren't they at the very best guilty of conspiracy?
MR VISSER: Yes. I referred accumulatively to an act of association, because there can also, if one wanted to be technical, there can also be the question that they might be guilty of some crime in a sense of attempt, Chairperson. You will recall that the evidence was, especially by Pretorius, that they gave evidence about other people as well, Tim Williams and so on, who were not struck and that would have been an attempt.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, the legal position, Mr Visser and I'm sure you'll agree with this, the goals or offences were committed in Botswana.
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It wasn't South Africa. All that they did in South Africa in which jurisdictionally we need to examine, is the conspiracy, "die beplanning".
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And of course the defeating of the ...
MR VISSER: The ends of justice. But we must bear in mind, Chairperson, that the Act goes wider and gives you the power to give amnesty also in regard to delicts and the delicts of course, that is something that hasn't been dealt with by our authorities before and that would obviously be relevant Chairperson, so as far as the delicts are concerned, that would include murder as well as damage to property.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Visser, people who are foreigners to South Africa, are not, in my view, bound by this Act.
MR VISSER: No, that's true.
CHAIRPERSON: If necessary, I accept that a delictual action cannot be brought if we grant amnesty.
MR VISSER: Correct, not in this country.
CHAIRPERSON: It cannot be sustained in South Africa, but they could go to the Hague, or wherever else.
MR VISSER: Oh yes, no there's no question about it, Chairperson and when we've asked for amnesty in regard to cross-border excursions, it's always been subject ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: ... basis.
MR VISSER: Oh yes. It's always been the acceptance Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Coetser, Mr Olifant is in a slightly different position than Mr Visser's clients. He went across and was part of the execution of that plan but prior to Hammanskraal, he was never party to the conspiracy. What would he be guilty of, bearing in mind what I just discussed with Mr Visser?
MR COETSER IN ARGUMENT: Well it depends on how one classes his activities.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let's start from the beginning. What's he applying for amnesty, in respect of what?
MR COETSER: Well no, obviously he's applying for amnesty in relation to any offences arising out of what occurred at Botswana, but certainly in so far as the South African aspect of the preparation of the raid is concerned, his activities at Hammanskraal, whether one can define those as simply acts of preparation or whether they go further than that, is probably what needs to be decided.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, and I'm just asking this because I don't want to be faced with having to answer the question in your absence, prior to going to Hammanskraal, all he did was to go observe.
MR COETSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Which in terms of South African law was perfectly legal. Even at Hammanskraal he was not told what was going to happen. At some stage before the attack, he himself says look he had an irresistible feeling and he drew that inference that these houses are going to be attacked and he drew that inference because of the usual way things happened within the forces. The question then arises is when he became aware and where was he when he became aware of the atrocities that were intended. If he became aware of it in Botswana, then his relation in respect of the offences doesn't fall within the jurisdiction of South Africa. If however, he became aware of this prospect while he was still within the borders of South Africa, then he may fall in exactly the same category as Mr Visser's clients.
MR COETSER: Ja. Well look, as he said, what was explained to him, although obviously it was on the need to know basis at that stage and pretty much all the way through, but he was asked by his handlers, I think it was Pretorius, if I'm not mistaken, whether he could still remember one or more of the houses that he had held observation and in effect, either before going to Hammanskraal or whilst at Hammanskraal, he was eventually advised that there was going to be this raid into Botswana, there were going to be attacks on houses, he was aware of the fact that people were also targets.
CHAIRPERSON: Was he told that at Hammanskraal?
MR COETSER: Well he has indicated in his evidence that at least by the time he was at Hammanskraal, this is what he had been advised. No question.
CHAIRPERSON: By whom?
MR COETSER: Well his evidence is a little contradictory there.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that's precisely the point.
MR COETSER: Yes, he may have made himself guilty, at best I would suggest, of reconstructive reasoning when he made the statement. As to exactly when ...
CHAIRPERSON: I must add I'm wary of the time lapse etc. also.
MR COETSER: Ja, but it's quite clear from his testimony in totality that at the time that he was at Hammanskraal busy with this training, he was aware that there was going to be this ...
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, I think you're right because at the end of the day, there was someone who came per helicopter to say that the Cabinet had, at least at that stage, there was some confirmation of the attack.
MR COETSER: And he knew what his function was going to be in the raid and namely that was to point out a house or houses.
CHAIRPERSON: So he was party to conspiracy.
MR COETSER: Ja and in addition to that obviously they wanted him to serve as some sort of lookout, so yes, he would fall within that category.
CHAIRPERSON: Now the question that then arises is conspiracy to commit murder, of whom in particular by the nature of the definition of conspiracy?
MR COETSER: Well you know at the end of the ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Nobody conspired to commit murder of a small kid.
MR COETSER: No but at the end of the day if one looks at the definition of the intent when it comes to murder, if one looks at the various doluses that fall within the category of murder and you know you have dolus directus, indirectus, generalis and of course eventualis and quite clearly there was a specific foreseeability in so far ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well, my view is that there was no question but directus here.
MR COETSER: Yes, certainly, but in so far as the targets are concerned, I think one can look at it from a point of view of the dolus generalis type situation where there is an anticipation and a realisation that people who have been targeted, whoever they may be, may be killed. It's more of a - it's like placing a bomb under a train. You don't know who your specific victims are going to be, but you know people are going to be killed.
CHAIRPERSON: There's a slight difference here.
JUDGE MOTATA: The three houses for instance which he pointed out prior to the attack.
MR COETSER: Well he must have foreseen and quite clearly in terms of his testimony, he did foresee the possibility that, or in fact the very real likelihood that if those houses were attacked, there were going to be occupants in those houses.
CHAIRPERSON: Well this is the interesting point. During the preparation for this attack, the representatives of the SAP and the Military got together quite a few times in preparation for this and they, as I understood it, I don't know what makes me think of a map with a number of flags on it and not often, but at times they used to remove these flags because of innocent women and children. There was a decision and I think it was the SADF that was insistent on it and said: "Look where there is any chance of that happening, that is not a target any more." Now the spirit of that must have been conveyed to the military people who actually perpetrated this because in one instance they in fact allowed a lady and a child to leave.
MR COETSER: Yes, well this witness who testified was one of them.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja. So, how does one explain then the killing of the 6 year old?
MR COETSER: Well one must, you know, one can only look at it unfortunately within the terms of Olifant's application and the fact of the matter is, we know that he was nowhere near part and parcel of that decision-making.
CHAIRPERSON: No I know that.
MR COETSER: Whatsoever. All he knew was that he was to take part in a raid where houses and human targets were to be attacked, but in so far as the specific orders are concerned in relation to that, he was not part and parcel of any of that. His only obligation in terms of that particular raid were to point our a house or houses that they wanted pointed out and to act as a look-out for one particular party in relation to one particular attack and that's it. But within that framework, the man went along obviously with the raid, with the realisation, albeit not knowing what the specific instructions and orders and tactics and aims were going to be, that property was going to be attacked and damaged and that individuals stood to be killed.
CHAIRPERSON: But if he would be found guilty of conspiracy in an ordinary criminal court, who would he be - who would be the targets or the victims of his conspiracy to murder?
MR COETSER: Well on the basis of foreseeability, it would really be anyone and everyone who actually wound up being killed.
CHAIRPERSON: Surely when you're in a conspiracy to commit murder, you have an idea of who you want to kill?
MR COETSER: Yes, but it depends upon the type of conspiracy. It depends upon the type of action that is intended, for example, if there is a conspiracy to kill a particular individual.
CHAIRPERSON: His own testimony is that he had Tim Williams in mind.
MR COETSER: No, I wouldn't go so far as to say that he had an intentional knowledge or belief that Tim Williams personally was going to be killed.
CHAIRPERSON: No, well it's difficult to draw the conclusion that if he was to point out the houses to identify that for attack and he associated Tim Williams with that particular house, then even on the far end of the stick that his foreseeability must have taken him to Tim Williams.
MR COETSER: Well there isn't evidence and we certainly don't know unfortunately exactly what the instruction, ultimate instructions were to the particular unit that was charged with the responsibility of attacking that house and he wasn't certainly made privy to that.
CHAIRPERSON: We don't know if there were any separate instructions to the different groups.
MR COETSER: Yes, we don't know. That's the problem, you see. It would have been nice if the military had come to this hearing, but ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well, Mr Coetser, well they didn't.
MR COETSER: I know.
CHAIRPERSON: They had their own reasons, but the fact of the matter is that your client makes the application.
MR COETSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: And this Committee has got to be satisfied that he has made a full disclosure, that what he did was based on a political motive, which I'll get to just now.
MR COETSER: Well look in terms of the definitions in the Act itself, the act must be associated with a political motive, the Commission doesn't have to be satisfied that he personally had a political motive, so as long as the Commission is satisfied that that raid was done ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Are you serious when you argue that look, if someone commits a murder on behalf of somebody else who had a political motive to see to the death of the victim, that the perpetrator is entitled to amnesty?
MR COETSER: Well, no, it's a little different here because one has to bear in mind that he was an agent of the police, under contract, under employment, under instruction, which is covered by the various definitions concerned in the Act, so in that sense the situation ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetser, let me remind you that all these policemen who acted on behalf of the SAP in committing all these atrocities, in addition to that, just didn't act as a conduit for some higher person's finicky wants. They did it because and they all say it, they were supportive of the Nationalist Party and they wanted to protect the apartheid system that was in place. It was also a personal activity on their part.
MR COETSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Now that's why I'm saying it doesn't really follow that because he acted in terms of orders, that that's sufficient. He himself must have acted out of a political conviction.
MR COETSER: I'm not so sure, I think one must check the definitions in the Act.
CHAIRPERSON: So what intent did he have then?
MR COETSER: I'm sorry?
CHAIRPERSON: What intent would he have had?
MR COETSER: Well his intention was to go along with an action that was designed to interrupt the efficiency of the ANC. In that sense ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Did he want to do that?
MR COETSER: That was his intention.
CHAIRPERSON: Or was he acting in terms of a command?
MR COETSER: Whether he privately agreed or disagreed with it is irrelevant. That was his intent in the formal sense of the word, to go along with an action that was associated with a political motive.
CHAIRPERSON: That's what I found strange with your client's evidence, that he was very upset about what he did, but yet he went along with it. He didn't want to do it because he felt he was selling himself out.
MR COETSER: To derive at an understandable answer in so far as that is concerned, you have to look at the totality of the evidence and the totality of the circumstances. The man has given a brief precis as to his background history.
CHAIRPERSON: Very brief.
MR COETSER: Yes, that is so, but the fact of the matter as one knows, is an 18 year old together with many others, he was, what's the old phrase - press-ganged, for want of a better phrase, by the South African government, when being arrested as a so-called illegal immigrant into the military. That eventually sent him off to Koevoet, which eventually sent him off to the Police Intelligence System and as he explained, by that stage he was in a position where if he tried to leave he would be killed and this Commission has seen plenty evidence of others exactly in the same position as him, in fact my instructions are, coming from literally the same village, wanting to escape that situation and being killed. If Mr Olifant's evidence, if I understand his evidence correctly, he tried to explain to the Commission that of those particular youths that he was with and were, for the want of a better phrase press-ganged into this entire situation, he's the only one left alive to tell the story.
CHAIRPERSON: Now what is he guilty of conspiring to do?
MR COETSER: Well his conspiracy, he's effectively with the military and the police to conduct a raid for the purposes of destroying property and lives.
CHAIRPERSON: The lives of people whom they considered a threat to South Africa?
MR COETSER: Of course.
CHAIRPERSON: Not innocent women and children?
MR COETSER: That is true.
CHAIRPERSON: How can he - if for example that child was killed by a soldier on a frolic of his own, can your client or any of the other clients then benefit by that?
MR COETSER: Well if that is proved, then obviously our client, Mr Olifant is innocent of that.
CHAIRPERSON: Precisely.
MR COETSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't it correct then that this conspiracy was directed against people who were a direct threat to South Africa at the time? Then maybe ...
MR COETSER: On the delictual aspect ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I may add that there may have been instances where innocent parties were killed, thinking or a mistaken identity of circumstances, but at the same time, in particular this child, could not have been considered by anybody on that escapade, as a threat to and would you agree also that it follows that it could not have been and would not have been on the evidence before us, part of the conspiracy?
MR COETSER: Correct. The only issue that remains however is the question of within the conspiracy and the means that were adopted to carry out that conspiracy. It could be argued that these people must have foreseen the possibility that an individual like a child, may well be killed in the process.
MR MALAN: In fact did foresee, not must have.
MR COETSER: They did.
CHAIRPERSON: And they excluded it. They excluded houses where the possibility existed.
MR COETSER: Well look, they endeavoured to reduce the risk, that is their testimony.
CHAIRPERSON: No but there was one house where they allowed the child to leave.
MR COETSER: Yes, yes, that is understood, but ...
CHAIRPERSON: So?
MR COETSER: What would appear, for example from Ms Mokoena's evidence and other testimony if I remember correctly, although it may come from this Silent War from Peter Stiff, is that the boy that was killed, occurred in circumstances where he made some sort of noise where he was hiding, or had come out from the place where he was hiding and the soldier instinctively shot before looking properly and only after he shot, realised that in fact the individual that he had shot was a boy.
CHAIRPERSON: And it shouldn't have happened.
MR COETSER: And it shouldn't have happened but the point is, what I'm trying to say is that although the testimony from the more senior figures in the police are that they adopted a course of action to try and minimise the risk of children being shot or injured in this particular raid, they nevertheless still foresaw the possibility at the end of the day, that such a risk may be realised, for example, by a soldier doing exactly that.
CHAIRPERSON: Doing exactly what?
MR COETSER: As I have described.
CHAIRPERSON: Where do we get that from?
MR COETSER: Well, as I've said, there is this explanation in Stiff's book, you know ...
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not going to take notice of Stiff.
MR COETSER: No, I understand that, but the point is, we're talking about foreseeability here.
CHAIRPERSON: No, we're not talking about foreseeability, we're speaking about a child discovered in a room and shot.
MR COETSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: He could not be regarded, by any stretch of the imagination, as a threat to apartheid.
MR COETSER: No, that is so.
CHAIRPERSON: And isn't that the end of the matter?
MR COETSER: No, because it depends upon the scope of the conspiracy.
CHAIRPERSON: Well the scope of the conspiracy excluded the killing of innocent women and children.
MR COETSER: As far as possible.
CHAIRPERSON: The spirit of that decision and conspiracy excluded the killing of children. Yes the spirit but the point is, in terms of the legalistic definitions of conspiracy, one has to look at the foreseeability aspect.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that all you've got to say?
MR COETSER: Yes, I can't take the matter any further. Ultimately it depends upon the Panel's evaluation in so far as that is concerned. It's a judgment that has to be brought to bear on the specific facts. I can't assist the ...
CHAIRPERSON: Now one last question on your client. What do you say about his performance as a witness?
MR COETSER: Well if that is going to be raised, then I certainly would have preferred to have been given the opportunity to prepare and to deliver a full argument on that tomorrow.
CHAIRPERSON: Why?
MR COETSER: Well there are various authorities that I would like to quote and various matters ...
CHAIRPERSON: I'm asking you as the representative, what do you submit about ...(intervention)
MR COETSER: I can give you an argument off the cuff so to speak on that aspect.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Well let's hear it.
MR COETSER: Look, the point is, for example, we had Mr Abrahamse sit here and I think his comments are very indicative of the problem that we're dealing with. He stated that he felt or believed that Mr Olifant was not telling the truth. Okay. But in reality Mr Abrahamse would appear not to have attended previous hearings in which other evidence has been led, he has not been fully ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: So you're quoting Mr Abrahamse. He's not the one that's going to have to make that decision. I'm asking you, have you got any submissions to make in respect of the credibility of your client.
MR COETSER: Yes, I do.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let's here that.
MR COETSER: The fundamental problem which Mr Abrahamse had, which I would submit that the Commission has too, is the frustration that exists all around amongst all of us in securing specific, clear and definite evidence as to exactly what happened in that raid. The reason being is that the military have not come and explained exactly what happened. Mr Olifant was the single individual in this entire incident who has had the capability within the confines of what he knew, to explain or to at least enlighten this Commission and everybody else involved and interested in what actually went on in Botswana and what actually occurred.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying we should believe him?
MR COETSER: But the point is that if one looks at his cross-examination, if one looks at his testimony, he has been criticised on one or two aspects where his testimony conflicts with the statements he submitted in support of his application, but the fact of the matter is, what I would like to point out to the Commission and everybody else involved here, is that the mere fact of a contradiction does not necessarily imply a lie. The mere fact of the admission of a mistake having been made in a statement, does not of it's own necessarily imply a lie and particularly if one takes into account the fact that this incident did happen 15 years ago. The man is obviously requested to rely on his memory when he makes these statements. The temptation ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetser, isn't your strong point, not the credibility of Mr Olifant, but the credibility of Mr Coetzee in support of what Mr Olifant says?
MR COETSER: I don't understand.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Coetzee supports Mr Olifant.
MR COETSER: I don't see any material contradictions between them.
CHAIRPERSON: Well that's why I'm saying, isn't that your strong point?
MR COETSER: No, it's not my strong point.
CHAIRPERSON: Okay let's hear what your strong point is.
MR COETSER: The strong point is the importance of realising various fundamental factors. Now there is an article which I would like to have referred the Panel to, written by a former Chief Justice of this country, emanating from his frustration at judicial officers not properly analysing factual material to determine credibility and what he warned there was, as I've just said, the mere fact of a contradiction does not necessarily imply a lie. There are many reasons why a contradiction can emerge, one of them being reconstructive reasoning. That reconstructive reasoning may result from a faulty memory but a desire to disclose facts. It may result from opinion, it may result from hearsay. Laymen, as we know, are inclined to indulge in reconstructive reasoning. Now a cross-examinational process via the delivery of oral evidence, in a forum such as this, is designed inter alia to control the reconstructive reasoning process and to determine from the witness what he can actually clearly remember now of the events that happened then, because it is only those things that he can still clearly remember that he can state as fact. What he can no longer remember clearly, the fact is he can no longer remember clearly. Now the point is ...(intervention)
JUDGE MOTATA: In his evidence, before you proceed, in his evidence what could we say is substantially fair which we could import and make a construction, a re-construction of what obtained in his excursion with the military people?
MR COETSER: Well the fundamental fact of the matter is that via the process of him testifying here and via the process of cross-examination, there were only really at the end of the day a few aspects concentrated on, otherwise the exercise was designed to secure from him what he could remember. Can he remember names, can he remember this, can he remember the other thing? On various aspects he said: "This is what I can remember" and he conveyed the facts. On other aspects he turned round and said: "I can't remember." That is what you got from him. That is what he testified to. So what he told you he can remember, those are the facts that you have. The things that he told you he can no longer remember, you don't have those facts.
JUDGE MOTATA: The tenor of the evidence before us, true that he was sent by Coetzee to Botswana to look at three houses, there was a time lapse and he was approached and said: "Can you remember those houses?" He said yes he was sent to Hammanskraal. At that stage Olifant knows nothing. When he gets there, he appreciates the intended ...(indistinct), he's trained in the process. He accompanies them. They set up camp somewhere in Zeerust. The other members like Coetzee and company are sent away. They shouldn't enter the camp because that is occupied by the military people, but Olifant is there and he even goes in and his evidence is that Botswana would have been paralysed. We had tents and tanks that were on stand-by and other helicopters hovering, so we place a man other than Coetzee and company, who at least had an appreciation of what was going to obtain in Botswana. That's the kind of evidence we are having and that's why I ask you, I say: "What would be", I'm not saying procedurally because we are not going to hone ourselves into what would obtain in Court, hence I steer away from procedurally fair to what is substantially fair in his evidence, which we can import and appreciate in considering his application from those facts I have sketched.
MR COETSER: Judge, with respect I don't quite understand what you're getting at, but ...(intervention)
JUDGE MOTATA: You have made a point by the Chief Justice that when you sit in a trial and somebody is asked to recall what obtained in an event that took place in the past, we shouldn't be dogmatic and say: "X must follow Y necessarily". We should look at the import of that evidence and say reconstruction, if we have gleaned the essential facts, you should lean towards, lean in favour of probably the applicant or the accused if we were in a court of law, so I say, what can we glean without being dogmatic about which even follows which, which would be in favour of Olifant.
MR COETSER: Well the point is he has set out the factual situation in his statements and he has elaborated thereon, or indeed they have been gone through to see what he can remember and can't actually remember in relation to what he actually knows about the matter. In so far as full disclosure is concerned, there are two issues to my mind. Whether in relation to the information aspects that he's been questioned on, the Commission comes to the view that he has deliberately and intentionally hidden facts from this Commission on aspects that he has been questioned about and aspects which the Commission would like to know about. That's the one. The second aspect is whether or not the Commission was of the view that with regard to the information that he has conveyed to the Commission, he has deliberately lied. If those two aspects are absent, well then in relation tot he information that he's disclosed and any further aspects the Commission wants to know about from him in the performance of the Commission's function, those two aspects are absent, then he has made full disclosure, from a practical point of view. The only issues that remain are, are there indications that clearly show that in relation to the information he has provided, he has, in a material respect, lied to this Commission, or in relation to aspects of information incidents or whatever the Commission is interested in and want to know about, he has deliberately withheld information from the Commission. Now I would, with respect, submit that in the analysis of his testimony, looking at it holistically, taking it as a whole, there is no proof that he has done either of those things. What he has been exposed, is doing in one or two instances at worst is that he has indulged in reconstructive reasoning when providing the affidavits concerned, but in the controlled process of oral testimony and cross-examination, reconstructive reasoning on one or two aspects has been exposed, but I would, with respect, submit that in conveying what he knows about the situation to this Commission, these aspects are not particularly material. Whether he was told for example by Pretorius, at the time when Pretorius spoke to him that there was going to be this raid on Botswana or whether he found out about it at Hammanskraal, is neither here nor there. What difference does it make? He found out about the raid. It may be that he reconstructed in his mind that Pretorius told them this, whereas being tested in oral testimony on his memory, he realised, no, sorry, this came from Hammanskraal.
Is that material? I pose a rhetorical question. I would submit not. There are one or two other aspects that I would say that the same argument applies on those other two aspects.
JUDGE MOTATA: What comes to my mind ...
MR COETSER: The point of the ...(indistinct) question is the frustration that the Commission expressed when he said: "Look sorry, I can't remember the names of the General" for example. "I can't remember this". It is hugely frustrating, I know, it's massively frustrating for everybody, but can the Commission be convinced on the totality of his testimony that he is for example hiding the name of that General from the Commission? Is he doing that? I would submit there is no justification to say he is not, when he can't remember other aspects. Is there a single aspect that he was questioned on and when he said: "Look I'm sorry, but now I'm afraid I cannot remember, I cannot supply you that information", are there any aspects, I pose a rhetorical question again, where the Commission can be satisfied that no, he's lied to us about no remembering, he's actually deliberately withholding this evidence from us. I would submit there's not one single example upon which the Commission can be satisfied that that is the case. So in that respect I would say that there has been full disclosure from this man in relation to what he can remember.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you finished?
MR COETSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Cornelius, it's our view that your client falls in exactly the same position as those of Mr Visser.
MR CORNELIUS: That is correct, Mr Chair.
CHAIRPERSON: Do you wish to add anything?
MR CORNELIUS: I've got nothing to add, thank you Chair.
NO ARGUMENT BY MR CORNELIUS
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger.
MR BERGER: Thank you Chairperson.
MR BERGER IN ARGUMENT: Thank you Chairperson. I'm hoping that I can persuade you away from that view. Chairperson, the requirement of full disclosure, my Learned Friend, Mr Visser, indicated earlier today that he was going to argue, but he never did, that despite what his client said, the targets of the raid were ANC members regardless of whether
they were involved in military activities or not. That wasn't the evidence.
CHAIRPERSON: Well let's be fair to his clients, I'm not talking about him, he has a job to do. His clients, as time went on and as evidence came along, started to water down the initial proposition that their targets were in fact MK members who posed a direct threat to South Africa. I understand what you're saying because later on when it became convenient, some of them said no, it was the broad ANC rebel group that we saw as the enemy. We're aware of that.
MR BERGER: Well but and it doesn't matter that the evidence came out in cross-examination, that's the purpose of cross-examination, it's to test the evidence and the strong theme from each and every witness was that - you'll recall the debate about whether it was people carrying out military activities, or whether it was people providing logistical support for military activities, or whether it was people planning military activities, but what was clear throughout the evidence of all the applicants was that the targets of the raid were ANC members who were involved in one way or another in military activities and I went so far as to say: "Does that exclude ANC members who were involved in political activities?" and the answer was yes, it excludes them.
Now I submit that the reason why that approach was taken was because then you can justify, we know, we've heard from witnesses on both sides, we know that the ANC used Botswana as a base from which to launch attacks, be it one fifth, or whatever, to launch attacks against South Africa. We know that, it's part of our history and there's no doubt that the Security Forces wanted to neutralise that threat. Now if that was all there was to it, there were attacks being launched from Botswana and the purpose of the raid was to neutralise those attacks, to destroy the military capacity of the ANC in Botswana, well then we have a quid pro quo. It's terrible to use that, but then there would have been proportionality within the meaning of the Act, which is what the Act requires.
CHAIRPERSON: I don't follow that. Just tell me.
MR BERGER: What I'm saying, if the aim of the raid, if the purpose, if the real purpose, is what I'm saying, was the stated purpose which is to knock out the military capacity of the ANC in Botswana, in Gaberone ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: I follow, then there's an equal balancing effect.
MR BERGER: Indeed Chairperson, then the purpose of the raid would have been proportional to the objective which was ultimately being sought.
CHAIRPERSON: And justifiable in terms of the Act.
MR BERGER: Indeed. And that's ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: Sorry, before you proceed. I'm not sure that I understand it in the same way. If you look at Section I thinks it's 20 (3), ...
MR BERGER: I have it right here.
MR MALAN: It starts off, and I don't have a copy before me, but it says in arriving at a decision as to whether something was political.
MR BERGER: Yes.
MR MALAN: In other words, if well in guiding you on the politics.
MR BERGER: Yes.
MR MALAN: The question I'm putting really to you is, if it's clear and I'm not arguing that it is, but if it's clear that the objective or that the attack or whatever was associated with a political objective, does 20 (3) come into play at all?
MR BERGER: Yes, yes Mr Malan it does because you know people wonder why ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Isn't there a Supreme Court case defining proportionality? It's a decision of Mohammed C J as he was.
MR BERGER: I'm not aware of ...
CHAIRPERSON: I speak under correction but it says there that the act, the offensive act by the applicant in considering whether amnesty must be granted, must also be weighed in terms of proportion whether the threat which the offensive action was directed at, required the veracity of that action.
MR BERGER: Yes, well in answer to Mr Malan's question, whether an act is political, is not decided as what a newspaper journalist would consider to be political, or what an ordinary person would consider to be political. There's a very specific definition of what is political and (3) of section 20 says
"whether a particular act",
I'm leaving out words that are not relevant,
"Whether a particular act is an act associated with a political objective, shall be decided, shall, with reference to the following criteria"
and then they set out the motive, the context, the legal and factual nature of the act, the objective of the act, whether it was primarily directed at a political opponent, whether the act was carried out with the approval of the organisation. Then (f):
"The relationship between the act, omission or offence and the political objected pursuit and in particular the directness and proximity of the relationship and the proportionality of the Act to the objective pursued"
and then doesn't include for person gain and malice.
MR MALAN: My question really relates to exactly that. Are you arguing that all those sub-clauses, (a) through (f) or whatever, should be present before one could decide that an act is indeed political?
MR BERGER: No. No. They shouldn't, I'm not saying that. It says
"Shall be decided with reference to the following criteria"
so they are ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: It's not an exhaustive list of guidelines.
MR BERGER: No, it's not.
MR MALAN: No, but that's not my question. My question is really ...(intervention)
MR BERGER: Your question, do all of them have to be met?
MR MALAN: Yes.
MR BERGER: Not necessarily, but the Committee has to have regard to all of them and weigh them up, balance them up to decide whether it was a political ...
MR MALAN: Now if we look ...(intervention)
MR BERGER: For example - sorry.
MR MALAN: But really you're arguing the proportionality and I'm open to that argument.
MR BERGER: Not only proportionality.
MR MALAN: Would you look at the other criteria as well and argue them then?
MR BERGER: For example motive, (a), what was the motive? Was the motive to strike at MK in the broad, as the witnesses have tried to be broad about it, or was the motive to strike at anyone who was connected to the ANC, whether politically, militarily or connected in the ANC family, so to speak.
MR MALAN: It would be both political.
MR BERGER: No but Mr Malan it's not - a decision to strike at X because he's an ANC supporter, is political in the broad sense of the word, but that doesn't qualify for amnesty in terms of Section 20 (3) of the Act. That's my submission to you. My submission is, the example I wanted to give, the killing of Chris Hani, the ordinary person in the street is amazed, that's not political. Clearly it's political, but does it comply with the requirements of the Act? The Committee found no, it doesn't, because it wasn't committed on behalf of an organisation whose policies were x, y and z, so what I'm saying is what might appear at first blush to be political, is not necessarily political for the purposes of the Act and what I'm submitting is that I'm using it at the moment for the question of full disclosure. What I'm submitting is that the applicants tailored their evidence to fall neatly within what would be accepted as being an act associated with a political objective because if it was an attack aimed at the army of the ANC, an attack by the army of apartheid, then questions of proportionality and motive and all of those things are easy to decide, but when you have an attack and I submit that this attack is clear, was an attack - look at the facts, 1985, I submit you can take judicial notice of the fact that that was when the state of emergency, the first state of emergency was declared, 1985, the climate at that time, the rumblings from the apartheid state that were coming out at that time, the way there was such a clamp down, then Mr McPherson testified.
MR MALAN: Well at the same time also the increase in activity from MK and especially the youth, 85, 86.
MR BERGER: Indeed and what was happening... (intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Before you carry on Mr Malan raises an issue here that strikes me. When this raid took place, amidst these rumblings and whatever, it was immediately before the ANC Conference.
MR BERGER: Indeed, that's what I just want to point out.
CHAIRPERSON: To decide on a very important matter.
MR BERGER: Absolutely. Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON: At that stage the ANC, as far as I read the notes, did not have a policy of not taking care of civilian casualties. That was subsequent to that conference.
MR BERGER: Kabwe?
CHAIRPERSON: Ja.
MR BERGER: Yes, one of the decision at Kabwe was now the line between hard and soft starts getting blurred because "look at what the regime is doing to us". Now a decision like that doesn't get taken in a vacuum, there's a lot of caucusing going on and planning before a conference and who is one of the people who is feeding information? It's Mr McPherson's delegate to Kabwe. Remember the evidence of Mr McPherson, he had a spy who was going to Kabwe. They knew where it was, they knew what was going to be discussed there and ...
CHAIRPERSON: Did they have the agenda? I can't remember I'm asking.
MR BERGER: He was preparing, he was preparing his delegate for conference.
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, strange as it was.
MR BERGER: Yes, and so the apartheid state knew what, everybody knew that the conflict had the potential of being escalated, there were attacks coming from Botswana to South Africa. Now in that context of a state of emergency, I submit, that the apartheid state needed an excuse to unleash its forces once and for all and to just create mayhem in a way that they could legitimise that mayhem to the international community and the way they needed to do that was to escalate the conflict so that it then became hard target, soft target, it didn't matter.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying that the attack, at least one of the reasons for this attack, was to enhance the physical conflict?
MR BERGER: It was to increase, to intensify the conflict, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: So they were, in a strange ironic way, supporting the proposal of the Kabwe Conference?
MR BERGER: I submit that it didn't matter to them one bit whether they hit military targets, political targets, women, children, friends of the ANC, it didn't matter at all. Mr Olifant was observing the house where Muff Anderson stayed. Muff Anderson had moved out of that house ten months before. It was never used as a safe house. He brought the information back to his handlers, to Coetzee. What could he have told them? What information could he have given them? And I submit it's easy to say he's a useless witness, we must disregard whatever he said, but he brought that information, it wasn't in his interests to manufacture information, or to pass through incorrect information.
CHAIRPERSON: What information would he have brought back?
MR BERGER: He would have said at that house was Uriel Abrahamse, if it was before ...
CHAIRPERSON: On your argument, if he had reported the truth, then he would say: "Look there's all strangers living there now".
MR BERGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Abrahamse, Hamlyn
MR BERGER: The Geer couple.
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously)
MR BERGER: No, no.
CHAIRPERSON: But all the people that they were supposedly interested in were not there.
MR BERGER: Yes, but Muff Anderson used to be there.
CHAIRPERSON: Now he would come back to his handler and say and give the correct version, how would that support your argument?
MR BERGER: Because Muff Anderson used to live at that house.
CHAIRPERSON: No well, let's assume Olifant came there and said: "Look she's not living there any more", ...(indistinct) Abrahamse living there.
MR BERGER: No Abrahamse is living there, if it's before the period that Abrahamse moved out and these are people who used to be involved with Muff Anderson, they're still living there. There are children coming to the house. It doesn't matter, we just go in a wipe them out.
MR MALAN: Well was the evidence not that in the beginning there were indeed a lot of targets on the list because it was simply arranged by priority, which included women and children, and only at a late stage in the planning was the question asked: "In which of these targets would we find women and children?" and only then were some removed.
MR BERGER: But not all.
MR MALAN: No clearly not all, but in terms of again this intelligence that they had, wasn't that the evidence?
MR BERGER: Mr Malan you know we've got to look, if you ask what was the evidence, where is the evidence from the applicant that, we've had a lot of allegations, where is the evidence that any one of the people who died was in any way involved in MK activities? There is no evidence, there's not a piece of paper, there's not a shred of evidence that any one of them was involved. If one looks at page 65 of bundle 1, you'll recall there's a list of people who were being observed. There's MK Calvin, who by the way is Riaz Saloojee, who was the person that Muff Anderson was talking about who she was living with, there's MK Rickets, there's Tim Williams, there's Billy Masetla, Christian Pepane, Roger Nkadimeng, Jackie, Sipho Dlamini, Lambert Maloyi, that's ...(indistinct) Misi, Ben Zokwe. I ask the Committee to ask itself why is it that not one of these people was killed, not one of them was hit. Why is it that the MK people, Muff Anderson, Riaz Saloojee, why were they not hit? Why is it that all the people that were hit are an old man who used to drive supplies, there's a suggestion that maybe when he wasn't with his other wife, he was launching rockets maybe. There's an artist, there's a student. We've heard the evidence from Uriel Abrahamse and from Muff Anderson about what Michael Hamlyn did. He was a student. Yes he said: "I'm joining the ANC", but he wasn't involved in political or military structures. What about Cecil, George and Lindi Pahle? The evidence from Ms Mbethe is that they were socialites, he was a businessman, she was involved in the Botswana Government. Joseph Malaza happened to pick the wrong weekend.
MR MALAN: There was also evidence that on occasion the Pahle home was used as a transit facility for an individual, that she knows of.
MR BERGER: Well I submit her evidence was not that, but even if it was that house, you recall the evidence from the applicants to say that once or twice is not enough, it has to be on a sustained basis, to qualify as a transit facility.
MR MALAN: Yet they had to rely again on their intelligence. Are you arguing, I just want to make sure, maybe your argument is that the applicants knew from the beginning that they would be hitting really irrelevant targets, but they wanted to escalate the conflict and I have sympathy for the escalation of the conflict idea, I have my doubts whether that was sort of a general feeling across the board, or whether it was a section and specifically the military, I have my doubts, it may include the Security Branch, but my question to you is really are you arguing that all the applicants really had it in the back of their minds that your argument was really the target?
MR BERGER: No I submit that what the applicants, that the intelligence that the applicants were processing, because that's what they say they were doing, was intelligence about ANC activities generally in Gaberone. Who was ANC? And I'm not saying that they had this sophisticated argument about escalation of the conflict, but the evidence was Botswana was being used as a launching pad by the ANC, we were going to hit the ANC and I submit that they did not draw a neat little line between political and military.
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, you raise this argument, it's a very interesting argument and it's one that one has to seriously consider, but if your argument is correct and your argument I must concede is fortified by the well-known intelligence structures of the regime then and if their intelligence on this escapade was so shoddy as it was described, it must have been deliberately so, if at all it did occur.
MR BERGER: And I say it didn't.
CHAIRPERSON: Are you saying Olifant didn't go out there?
MR BERGER: No he did, he did go out there and he did gather intelligence and he did bring it back to Coetzee as asked.
CHAIRPERSON: Well then I don't understand because you know one got to know the effectiveness of the South African intelligence of the time. They were pretty good.
MR BERGER: They were very good. Craig Williamson in fact describes the intelligence as
"The most sophisticated intelligence machinery he had at his disposal"
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Now if that be the case and one has to consider your argument, then the shoddy intelligence work in this escapade, must have been deliberately shoddy.
MR BERGER: It wasn't shoddy, that's my argument, it wasn't shoddy.
CHAIRPERSON: Well ja, it possibly didn't happen at all.
MR BERGER: No, there are military operations being launched from Botswana into South Africa. The Security Branch and later the military decide: "We have to counter this and we counter it by striking at the ANC and we're going to hit them so that they do not launch any more attacks against us, but we're not going to be" - and I'm not saying this was the reasoning, I'm saying this is how it panned out, they didn't worry about whether the person whom they hit was a military target or a political target, or a civilian member of the ANC, as long as the people whom they hit were ANC and that was the intelligence, it didn't matter, that fine line didn't matter. Let me ...(intervention)
JUDGE MOTATA: Because Botswana was one of the sympathetic countries towards ANC, you had Lesotho being somewhat paralysed and Swaziland not being very helpful and Botswana was in the fore assisting these people.
MR BERGER: Indeed. In fact the army were prepared to wipe out Botswana if the need arose. Look at what Mr Loots says in his evidence. This is right at the beginning of this hearing. He is asked about Duke Machoabane. His answer
"Well I remember his name as a collaborator or an MK member."
"Joseph Malaza ..."
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct)
MR BERGER: It's my note.
"Joseph Malaza the same, this is the Hertz man, Thami Mnyele got involved in music, Dick Mtsweni regularly mentioned in reports, George Pahle, regularly mentioned in reports, Lindi Pahle, can't recall her name, not a suspect from our division, possible her name was mentioned by other divisions."
The asked who was definitely on the list of targets, he says:
"Thami Mnyele, Duke Machoabane, Dick Mtsweni, the old man, George Pahle".
Those were the four people that he remembers were definitely on the list of targets. What evidence does he have? He says regularly mentioned in reports. Doing what? He can't take it further than that. Compare that with our evidence. What do our people say about Thami Mnyele, or Dick Mtsweni, or George Pahle. I ask the Committee to compare that evidence and then ask: "Why is it that the people who were hit, were at best involved in the ANC in the non military side and why is it? Because of examples, like Muff Anderson says to Mike Hamlyn: "You better not stay at home." Baleka Mbethe says to Thami Mnyele: "You better not stay at home" and what happens? They stay at home because they say: "We're not targets." They never even thought that the apartheid state would be mad enough to target them because what were they involved in that justified such a response? All the people who were involved militarily, they get out of the way.
MR MALAN: Mr Berger was it not your witnesses that introduced the evidence that they advised the victims not to stay at home because they believed that they may be targeted and hit?
MR BERGER: No, they believed that if the Security Forces are coming, we don't know how they're coming and ANC people are at risk. That was their belief, but the very people who got killed, their belief was: "I'm not a person who ought to be a target. I'm not the kind of person that the apartheid state wants to kill, because I'm not involved in military operations against the apartheid state." Why would, if there is this alert and if there is this general paranoia, why would people like Mike Hamlyn and Thami Mnyele ignore this advice? I submit the only explanation can be that they didn't seriously think they would be targeted for assassination. I can't think of another probable explanation.
MR MALAN: No, that I accept but your witnesses clearly accepted that they could be targeted.
MR BERGER: They accepted that anyone could be targeted.
MR MALAN: Ja including those people.
MR BERGER: Yes.
MR MALAN: But they specifically warned those people, not everybody. There wasn't an alert, the evidence was not that there was an alert out for everybody who was associated with the ANC or seen as ANC to be sleeping in homes not of ANC.
MR BERGER: No there was that evidence.
MR MALAN: No well not very specific that she advised, sorry Ms Anderson was very specific advising Hamlyn to move out because of the address being associated with her.
MR BERGER: Yes and Ms Mbethe says at page 14, para 5: "I told Thami that I hoped he was not sleeping at his house as there had been an alert since the beginning of June." Not an alert about Thami Mnyele, a general alert.
CHAIRPERSON: You see, Mr Berger, your argument sounds very attractive to me. I want to raise one issue there, because I need to deal with it. I've got no doubt that there was this general alert. Now if these people were being warned not to sleep at home, let me ask you this, is there any evidence that those who warned others, themselves left home? I don't recall evidence like that.
MR BERGER: Well Tim William's house was attacked, Tim Williams wasn't killed.
CHAIRPERSON: No, no, no I accept that. I'm talking about - let's take Ms Mbethe.
MR BERGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: She had the presence of mind to tell Thami: "Thami you'd better not sleep at home if there's a general alert" and I'm not saying that I hold anything against her, Ms Mbethe, but if Thami was not considered a target and everybody associated with the ANC had to leave home because of this general alert, did Ms Mbethe leave home, because she was clearly a member of the ANC?
MR BERGER: Well we don't know, but I submit that the evidence is clear. There's a general alert: "Don't sleep at home" and all ANC ...(intervention
CHAIRPERSON: All ANC members would have to change addresses then for that night or two, whatever.
MR BERGER: Yes.
JUDGE MOTATA: And she doesn't only alert Thami, she herself did not sleep there, but as we look at the evidence we don't hear about her being wanted, but because of this alert, she says: "Thami, don't sleep at home" and she takes the advice she has given to Thami and not sleep at home and she survives.
MR BERGER: Well Judge we don't know who exactly slept at home and who didn't sleep at home.
JUDGE MOTATA: At least we know Ms Mbethe did not.
MR BERGER: ; Well I would assume so.
JUDGE MOTATA: No, no, it's in the statement. Read the statement. I'm quoting from her statement
"I told Thami that I hoped he was not sleeping at his house as there had been an alert since the beginning of June. He assured me he wasn't. I did not see him alive again. I did not sleep at my house that night."
MR BERGER: Thank you. Yes, I'm sorry, I missed that.
CHAIRPERSON: So it seemed that everybody was changing abodes for a period.
MR BERGER: Well we know, as I said, we know that Tim William's house was destroyed, but Tim Williams wasn't killed.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MALAN: Was he in Kabwe?
MR BERGER: No, he wasn't.
CHAIRPERSON: Carry on. I follow your argument.
MR BERGER: And the only supposed evidence that we've been furnished with is this paragraph from the book of Peter Stiff which it is so clear now is riddled with rubbish that no reliance can be placed on this, so where ...(indistinct - speaking simultaneously) ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: Well Mr Berger, let's cut out the comments. You have the undertaking that the veracity of the book has not been proved, we will not take any notice of ...(indistinct)
MR MALAN: May I, just for myself, ask because I thought that we could take Stiff's book at least as a communication of what Williams and others at that level would have given him in order to write the book.
MR BERGER: Williams?
MR MALAN: No, I'm not talking about Tim Williams, Williamson and others. That's part of the propaganda.
MR BERGER: Well Mr Malan I don't know that Craig Williamson gave Peter Stiff any information.
MR MALAN: No, I'm talking about a level. Where would he have had the information from?
MR BERGER: He says he interviewed Barnacle and ...
MR MALAN: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Well in any case Mr Berger, you're not prepared to make that concession.
MR BERGER: No. For example Peter Stiff says that he was told that Uriel Abrahamse is dead. It's in this paragraph.
CHAIRPERSON: Perhaps that's the reason why Mr Olifant didn't recognise him.
MR MALAN: I think Mr Abrahamse said that the Sunday Times had a similar report.
MR BERGER: He said originally he was on the list, yes.
MR MALAN: Also that he was dead.
CHAIRPERSON: He was the Joe Slovo of Botswana.
MR BERGER: Was he the Joe Slovo of Botswana or was it Tim Williams?
CHAIRPERSON: I think he said ...
MR MALAN: I wasn't in on it.
CHAIRPERSON: I think he testified that the newspapers said that.
MR BERGER: That's what he said, yes. Yes, he says in his statement...(intervention)
MR MALAN: My question really is, isn't it common cause that there was a briefing immediately after the raid where Williamson and I think Staedler led the briefing, where they gave the information that later sort of corroborated or whatever, or repeated in Stiff's book, so the point really is that there was some presentation to make it believable.
MR BERGER: Yes, but where did that evidence come from or was it the usual Stratcom that was manufacture ...
MR MALAN: That's exactly the point I'm making. If we look at the facts also conceded by some of the applicants where they say: "We didn't really know. We were involved in some way but we were not directly involved in the target selection. Others had a certain duty, we did present whatever we had."
MR BERGER: But Mr Malan, with respect, they can't wash their hands of the targets that were chosen because they had a hand in putting forward information which was ultimately relied upon for targets to be chosen.
MR MALAN: Absolutely, that's what they say.
MR BERGER: Amongst those targets, they say, were people like Dick Mtsweni and my submission is that with the intelligence that they had at their disposal, with the intelligence machinery that they had at their disposal, they would have known that Dick Mtsweni was a driver who drove supplies. An old man who drove supplies for the ANC and that they would have known that in the exile community there were people who needed toilet paper and soap and underpants and all those things. They would have known that, so the question is, why did they pass that information through? Why did they allow Dick Mtsweni's name to go onto the list, which is what Loots says, it was on the list.
JUDGE MOTATA: Because they saw him transporting high profile ANC members from the airport.
MR BERGER: Yes and so then he became a target. That didn't make him involved in military activities. That made him an ANC member, it made him part of the ANC family in Gaberone and I submit that the ANC family in Gaberone was the target, it didn't matter, as I said, whether you were military, or political or not.
I ask the Committee to ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: In either case, would you - I'd like your comment. In either case the requirement of political motivation would be satisfied, I'm asking?
MR BERGER: In either case?
CHAIRPERSON: Ja, whether it was directed supposedly at MK or the whole ANC family on the other hand. I'm asking, I'm not proposing it.
MR BERGER: Well Section 20 (3) says have a look at the motive. What was the motive? Was the motive to hit at MK or was the motive to hit at the ANC generally?
CHAIRPERSON: We know as a fact, historically, that the military wing of the ANC was MK and they fell into one group as opposed to the apparatus of apartheid. Here we have a clash between the sustainers of apartheid against the ANC and/or its military wing. Would that satisfy the Act if we accept that the two clashed?
MR BERGER: Yes, if it was a clash between the SADF and MK, is that what you're asking?
CHAIRPERSON: No, I'm saying whether the perpetrators of this attack, whether they say it was firstly directed at MK or not and then it's watered down to ANC generally, if we find that it was against either, or let's say we find at worst it was against the ANC, would that satisfy the Act?
MR BERGER: Well, no, firstly you then have to say: Are we satisfied that they made full disclosure.
CHAIRPERSON: We'll come to the full disclosure, we'll come to that.
MR BERGER: Okay, leave that out.
JUDGE MOTATA: The political aspect.
MR BERGER: You then have to ask: If it was against the ANC family, from Mike Hamlyn to Chris Hani, if it was against that whole family, then you must ask, was it proportional to the objective which was being pursued?
CHAIRPERSON: Then we have to resort also to all those guidelines.
MR BERGER: All the guidelines in 20 (3) and if you're of the view that MK could have been attacked and the military capacity of the ANC could have been substantially cut down by a well-planned attack against MK targets, if that is your view, then going against Mike Hamlyn, Dick Mtsweni, Thami Mnyele, going against them would have been out of proportion, I submit, to the objective which was being sought.
CHAIRPERSON: What you are saying, the killing of Dulcie September could never be justified, whereas the attempted murder of Aboobaker may very well be?
MR BERGER: It depends what the objective that was being pursued was. If the objective was to utilise a military threat, which is what the stated objective of this raid was, a military thing, if that was the objective, then killing the politicians is beyond the pail, out of proportion. If the objective was to wipe out the ANC because politically they were causing the apartheid state huge embarrassment throughout the world, well then there's a different test, but that is not the stated objective of this particular attack. The stated objective of this particular attack was to neutralise a military threat.
CHAIRPERSON: It was a pre-emptive defensive mechanism.
MR BERGER: Indeed, against a military threat.
CHAIRPERSON: Or at least a violent threat.
MR MALAN: Could you just argue for me, what would the relevance be, because you talk about the State's objective, the Apartheid State Regime's objective?
CHAIRPERSON: No the stated objective.
MR MALAN: Ja of the State.
MR BERGER: The stated objective of the State.
MR MALAN: The applicants before us clearly are operatives at some lower level than where the decisions were taken. Could you just give me an argument on that?
MR BERGER: Yes. The evidence is clear. Remember, I forget which witness it was who referred to the green bundle and said, I think it was headed, I may be wrong: "Dade van terreur uit Botswana" or something, Mr Wagener has it, "Infiltration of African National Congress and Pan Africanist Congress Terrorists to the Republic of South Africa via Botswana". This dossier was put together to show the so-called acts of terror which were being perpetrated in South Africa from Botswana. The Western Transvaal Security Branch from which the first four witnesses came, they were at the forefront of this intelligence-gathering exercise because the Western Transvaal was monitoring the military operations which were being planned and executed against South Africa. So Western Transvaal focus was and plan was to stop these military attacks, these attacks in South Africa which were emanating from Botswana, so the stated purpose of the raid was also the purpose for which information was being passed on by the very applicants in this case.
MR MALAN: Well there was also evidence that that document was a compilation of all the intelligence from all the different branches.
MR BERGER: Yes. No I'm not only relying on this document. If you consider the evidence ...(intervention)
MR MALAN: No but it clearly wasn't, for instance the evidence I think of Pretorius that Soweto's intelligence on Botswana was much better than that of Western Transvaal.
MR BERGER: And they were also concerned, Soweto was also concerned about the military threat from Botswana into South Africa.
MR MALAN: Yes.
JUDGE MOTATA: Because the attacks in Soweto largely emanated from Botswana.
MR BERGER: Yes. So all of the 8 applicants, well not all because there are two that I must deal with separately, they were concerned with gathering information which they say they knew was to be used for the purposes of planning a strike against that military threat which was emanating from Botswana.
JUDGE MOTATA: But the setting up of the Western Transvaal Branch of the Security, wasn't it, could I describe it as a collation point where all these reports would eventually end up and thereafter taken to Pretoria?
MR BERGER: Yes.
JUDGE MOTATA: Would I be describing it correctly?
MR BERGER: I submit so, yes. But all of them were concerned with gathering intelligence to counter this military threat. The evidence of various applicants before you in the last hearing, was there was this escalation in military activity from Botswana.
MR MALAN: May I just ask you this? If I can summarise your argument on this point, you're saying to us that, you've quoted Williamson, that the intelligence was of the best. The intention was never to go at the military, but to cause havoc at the level of the civilian, these people knew exactly what they were doing and they were targeting non military targets and they're simply not disclosing, they're lying to us?
MR BERGER: Not that they were targeting only non-military targets, they were targeting the ANC in Gaberone, whether they were military, political or civilian and they are not being frank with you on that score. Yes, that is my submission.
CHAIRPERSON: And you base that submission on the ...(indistinct) of what happened?
MR BERGER: I base it on the evidence that I've presented to you. I base it on the lack of evidence on the side of the applicants to actually identify any, come forward with any concrete evidence to show that any of the deceased were involved militarily and the fact that the people who were supposed to have been being observed at page 65 of bundle 1, none of them were killed. Why is it that we have the deceased - not one of the deceased is on that list at page 65 and then of course the whole question of what they knew about what Vic McPherson, what they knew about Kabwe, that whole argument that I've already presented about the escalation of the concept and the time, the time in which we lived, 1985, the middle of 1985. I ask the Committee to think back to what was happening at that time and how things were rapidly spiralling out of control.
And then finally there were just two applicants, you will recall, there were two applicants, I forget their names now, whose evidence was that they were asked to gather certain information and they had no idea what that information was going to be used for. Well they can't possibly have the requisite mens rea for any effects.
CHAIRPERSON: Who were those two?
MR BERGER: Krause and Smit.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. What's your attitude towards those two, Mr Visser?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, if my Learned Friend could finish, there are just one or two issues that I would just wish to reply and I will do that at the same time.
CHAIRPERSON: Because it slipped my mind. That is quite correct.
MR BERGER: So Chairperson, those are submissions and I would ask, both on the question of full disclosure, because they're interlinked, the question of full disclosure and the requirements of 20 (3) of the Act on either of those bases, I would submit that the applicants are not entitled to amnesty.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. Mr Visser.
MR VISSER IN REPLY: Chairperson, with your leave, very briefly.
CHAIRPERSON: Is that a promise?
MR VISSER: That's a promise, Chairperson, I want to go home. Chairperson, the whole issue of the attacks and the targets, there are two issues that one must recall. One is that the evidence of Loots and the evidence of Pretorius, supported by the other applicants, was that it was facilities, as far as they were concerned, were the targets. That's the first thing. The second thing, with people in them, obviously, but it was the facilities that were the main targets and they mentioned them to you. The second thing Chairperson is that Steyn and Loots made it quite clear that what they brought or took forward was a summary of about five years of intelligence. They made no decisions. What they did is they brought the most prominent facilities and/or persons forward for somebody else to make the decision. So, my Learned Friends whole argument as to what the purpose or intention of the raid was, really does not affect the applicant before you here, for the simple reason that they were neither part of making any decisions, nor were they part, apart from Mr Olifant, of participating in the raid.
Chairperson the argument of my Learned Friend that this attack was to intensify the conflict, is based on pure speculation, there is nothing before you to support that, with great respect, but what we know ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: There's great suspicion though.
MR VISSER: There might be suspicion.
CHAIRPERSON: I'm not saying that is sufficient.
MR VISSER: Yes, there may be suspicion Chairperson, certainly, but not sufficient for you to act upon.
Chairperson what we say is it would be naive to assume for a moment that the military would go into Botswana and pick out only people who were confirmed MK people. We know what would have happened and what did happen. They would have hit everybody they knew were supporters of the ANC because that's what the Act talks about Chairperson. Members or supporters of a political organisation or the political organisation itself. That's one aspect my Learned Friend didn't deal with. We say at least they acted against the political organisation itself.
Chairperson then second lastly, my Learned Friend says the applicants presented no proof of MK association of these people. May I refer you to bundle 2? Just two references, page 4 and page 11. At page 4 Mrs Mtsweni, that's Dick's mother - I'm sorry, Dick's daughter, gives this evidence.
"He wanted to fight for the nation or for the freedom of the people because he was a member of Umkhonto weSizwe."
JUDGE MOTATA: What page is that?
MR VISSER: This is page 4 of bundle 2 Chairperson. At the bottom, third last paragraph. Ms Mtsweni, she wasn't called as a witness, we don't know why, but there she is.
Chairperson at page 11 Mrs Mkhize, the mother of - I'm sorry, Mrs Mnyele who is the mother of Thami Mnyele gives evidence and she's asked by Mrs Mkhize: "When you say a white policeman killed your son.." so it's with reference to Thami Mnyele, she says this at the bottom of the page:
"He had just undergone training for MK."
Now my Learned Friend just ignores this, he doesn't draw your attention to that, he doesn't tell you why these witnesses are not called. We were waiting for them to be called to put this to them, they were not called, but my Learned Friend can't argue to you that all these people were as innocent and we can only refer to the evidence ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: If you make the point, why didn't you call them?
MR VISSER: Chairperson, must I call a witness to break him down, because I don't know whether that's ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: No I'm saying, you're criticising the victims for not calling a witness, those people in my view are free witnesses, they can easily be called.
MR VISSER: They're the clients of my Learned Friend. He pronounced himself to be representing all these people.
CHAIRPERSON: He mentioned who he is representing.
MR VISSER: Yes, including these people.
CHAIRPERSON: Is it?
MR VISSER: Absolutely.
JUDGE MOTATA: He mentioned families.
MR VISSER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: In any case, are you done?
MR VISSER: Yes, no Chairperson there's the last issue, that's the question of Krause and Smit. As Krause and Smit told you that they were field workers, or they collected information, Smit was the field worker who passed on the information to Krause, neither of them could remember much. I think Krause remembered Mr Mnyele, if I'm not mistaken, but one of them, but he couldn't remember any information about any of the others and then in cross-examination, in evidence-in-chief he was asked whether he associated himself with the raid and he said yes. In cross-examination he was asked: "Did you know before you gave the information that it was going to be used in the raid?" and he said no and Smit also said no. Chairperson, we say that with respect that makes no difference to the fact that they knew at the time of the raid, that the information that they had provided was going to be used.
CHAIRPERSON: No but if they want to be party to the conspiracy, shouldn't they know why they are contributing to ...?
MR VISSER: Well, Chairperson ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: If they merely gave names, I'm saying what certain people did, wasn't that in the ordinary course of their job?
MR VISSER: Well, in the ordinary course of their job, that wouldn't have been something that they would have done, that would have led nowhere. Clearly what they were doing was collecting information that was passed on for action to be taken upon, clearly. Now your point is ...
CHAIRPERSON: But is that so?
MR VISSER: Well, it must be so, Chairperson, what else were they doing?
CHAIRPERSON: I saw they gave names to Head Quarters previously when nothing occurred.
MR VISSER: Yes, certainly, but they could never turn around and say: "We never expected that somebody would ..."
CHAIRPERSON: The fact that they associate themselves with the attack, maybe they, maybe after the fact.
MR VISSER: That's also a crime.
CHAIRPERSON: Or after them giving this information.
MR VISSER: It was certainly on their evidence after they gave the information that they realised that the information was going to be used in the attack, certainly.
CHAIRPERSON: But when they performed the act of giving information,
MR VISSER: Then they didn't know.
CHAIRPERSON: It was in the ordinary course of their duties.
MR VISSER: On their evidence that is what you've got ...
CHAIRPERSON: And therefore the question is asked then, of what are they guilty?
MR VISSER: Well, because they realised afterwards that the information which they gave was going to be ...(intervention)
CHAIRPERSON: So what are they guilty of?
MR VISSER: Well, they say they associated themselves, Chairperson.
CHAIRPERSON: With what?
MR VISSER: With the raid in Botswana. Both of them said so.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes.
MR MALAN: When did they know - sorry, just to refresh my memory, at what stage did they know that there was to be a raid?
CHAIRPERSON: They didn't...(intervention)
MR VISSER: Chairperson, they were not asked that.
CHAIRPERSON: They didn't know until after the raid.
MR VISSER: They were not asked that Chairperson, so I don't know. No they couldn't have known after the raid. In fact my attorney just points out to me, they were right there.
MR MALAN: They were at the monitoring point.
MR VISSER: Yes, so they knew beforehand.
MR MALAN: That's why I'm asking you. Yes, both of them.
MR VISSER: Yes.
MR MALAN: That certainly was my recollection.
MR VISSER: Thank you Mr Malan. Yes, I'd forgotten about that. They knew beforehand, yes.
CHAIRPERSON: Yes. Thank you. That brings an end to this hearing. Mr Steenkamp, will we be ready for tomorrow's hearing?
ADV STEENKAMP: We'll be ready tomorrow Chairman ...(indistinct)
CHAIRPERSON: ...(indistinct) We'll adjourn to half past nine tomorrow.
MR VISSER: Mr Chairman I was just wondering, I'm for the applicant in tomorrow's application. I haven't seen him. I saw him some time ago, but I haven't seen him lately. I was just wondering whether I could ask you for a little time to be able to just go through his statement with him tomorrow morning, but we'll probably be ready by half past nine, but if we're not, could we approach you just for a little more time?
CHAIRPERSON: Mr Berger, are you here tomorrow?
MR BERGER: No, thankfully I'm out of it now. I take it, Chairperson, that Judgment is being reserved and that is the end of this application.
CHAIRPERSON: Not on these difficult points, I'm not going to give it off the cuff.
MR BERGER: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON: It's not an easy decision.
MR BERGER: Just for completeness sake.
CHAIRPERSON: Thank you.
HEARING ADJOURNS
